Slashdot Mirror


German Gov To Ban Paintballing After Shooting

whoever57 writes "In response to the school shooting in March in which 16 people were killed, the German Government plans to ban all games in which players shoot at each other with pellets. The rationale for this is that 'paintball trivializes violence and risks lowering the threshold for committing violent acts.' Fines could be up to 5,000 euros."

580 comments

  1. Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on Germany, you used to be cool.

    1. Re:Really Germany? by Narcocide · · Score: 0

      paintball trivializes violence and risks lowering the threshold for committing violent acts

      read:

      paintball is superior combat training and risks lowering the threshold for members of an angry enough but otherwise untrained populace to commit violent acts

    2. Re:Really Germany? by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I play paintball. You obviously don't.

      I know at least two people with military training who also play. I can, and routinely do, tag them both.

      It isn't "combat training" of any sort. The weapons don't work the same way - paintball guns are generally pump-action, semi-auto or work via electronic "ramping" systems, which do not resemble fire selection modes on firearms in the slightest. The recoil is practically non-existent. The range is measured in feet instead of meters as would be the case with rifles.

      Projectile velocity is around 240 fps, whereas actual firearm projectiles move at anywhere from 1000 fps for pistols to over 3000 for military rifles. Trying to aim a paintball gun using firearm skills or vice versa is a good way to miss. You need to lead a lot more, and correct for dip a lot sooner.

      The fields at which you play paintball are generally symmetrical (for speedball), or at least balanced.

      About the only combat skill relevant to real life warfare and paintball is cooperation. Both a paintball team and military squad need to communicate, coordinate and cover each other. Since the "angry, but otherwise untrained" people you're talking about commit solo acts of violence, paintball would be useless training for them.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:Really Germany? by Xaoswolf · · Score: 1, Funny

      What are they going to do next, demand that we remove the ovens from the kitchens of the citizens?

    4. Re:Really Germany? by Narcocide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      touche

    5. Re:Really Germany? by theNetImp · · Score: 1

      Agreed, there is no reason to outlaw paintball, such a stupid german thing to do.

    6. Re:Really Germany? by Hojima · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's even more ironic that they plan to ban pellet sports. The soldiers in training use lasers, which involve no pellets, and the guns are real and fitted with blanks. So if anything, they are making the more violent/practical sport a legal alternative. Way to go legislature.

    7. Re:Really Germany? by iamangry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a world of grays, the black and white of law can never hope to completely navigate the perilous thin line between freedom and safety. Once upon a time, it was the principles of the people and the seriousness of the times that dictated where the line of law was drawn. Now, its the wishes of the powerful and the excuses of the times that allow the line of law to be drawn ever farther from freedom in the name of safety. This effect is seen in nearly every major "democratic" society today. And it's a shame.

    8. Re:Really Germany? by stms · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not only that But I would definitely start playing more paintball if they illegalized; it illegal things are 10 times funner.

    9. Re:Really Germany? by !coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the piece I saw on Euronews yesterday (I think) had the journalist saying that the move was a consequence of recent school shootings and, basically, just a way to uppease certain lobby groups that were demanding stricter gun control rules.

      Now, I don't know if it's true, but it does seem like nothing more than a smokescreen manouver on the part of the German government.

      It's actually funny, in a way.. I remember the first time I played paintball. Besides being tons of fun, I specifically remember how it struck me, for real, for the first time, just how easy it is to get killed in a combat scenario. One slip up, one moment's distraction, one false move, and you could end up with 4 members of the opposite team lined up in front of you like a firing squad (got blasted with something like 5 shots a piece that time, had to scream at them that I was dead -- corridor negotiation on an abandoned Asylum... man, what a perfect scenario for a match).

      That and all the nooks and crannys where a shooter can hide and pick you off without you ever figuring out where he/she was.

      Of all the people I know that play (or used to play) paintball, not one of them even owned guns. Yeah, they do have a certain charm, but .. *sigh* Correlation is not causation, anyone? (that is, assuming those recent school shootings even had any connection whatsoever to paintball).

    10. Re:Really Germany? by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They banned red blood in video games and throw people in prison for saying the holocaust didn't happen.

      You expect something rational to happen there?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    11. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      douche

    12. Re:Really Germany? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also, in paintball, bushes are cover :-).

    13. Re:Really Germany? by peektwice · · Score: 5, Funny

      What are they going to do next

      Make you wear a helmet while driving your car.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
    14. Re:Really Germany? by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      And wear water wings while eating soup.

    15. Re:Really Germany? by Kleen13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly, and well said. You might as well ban the military for the same reasons. Talk about political knee jerk reactions with untangable results. Any elections upcoming?

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    16. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      First they came for the paintballers, and I did not speak up because I was not a paintballer...

    17. Re:Really Germany? by stfvon007 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No the water wings don't work. You need to wear life vests or other DEUTSCH LIFEGUARD APPROVED flotation device when having soup. Water wings are not approved.

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    18. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany, where you can watch two people shit in eachothers mouths while doing backflips, and where you'll get arrested for doing "the gun" with your hand.

    19. Re:Really Germany? by noundi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll tell you what though. The level of excitement for me was only slightly higher when we had BT training in the army. That means all the real and standard gear but blank rounds with laser equipment to simulate battle. However what will improve when playing paintball is the way to think in extremely stressing situations. This was for me more or less the same using paintball or BT equipment. But then again extremely stressing situations doesn't necessarily mean battle. Either way, fucking retarded way to prevent crime. This won't have any effect at all. And if it does I pity the germans for being so simple minded, which I still doubt they are.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    20. Re:Really Germany? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Hey they're the proto-Nazi pool they're bound to do evil. Taking all their war toys away will eventually let them speak French.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    21. Re:Really Germany? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Woah, woah, woah.

      I play paintball too. And I disagree with some of your statements.

      It isn't "combat training" of any sort.

      It can serve as a form of combat training, especially for close-quarters combat. I used to play with some soldiers on an Army base who would train with paintguns for just that reason. They said that the military laser systems were rampant with cheaters and they also wanted the soldiers to feel the sting of being shot. (This was 10 years ago, maybe they have improved the laser systems since then.)

      Trying to aim a paintball gun using firearm skills or vice versa is a good way to miss. You need to lead a lot more, and correct for dip a lot sooner.

      Paintball really honed my snap shooting skills and I have found that directly translates to shooting real firearms. I find that shooting trap or skeet with my shotgun is almost exactly like shooting a paintgun at a moving target. I also think that it improves defensive pistol shooting where you aren't carefully aiming at a target, but just trying to draw and hit it quickly.

      Projectile velocity is around 240 fps

      I know Germany keeps the velocity low (210??), but it's 280-285 in the US at insured fields, and a lot of people who play on their own fields turn it up to 300 fps.

      That said, I totally agree that in paintball, cooperation is key. The angry or solo players are usually taken out early... unless they are really good.

      TFA said that the crazy kid's dad had 15 guns, so I am betting that little Johnny was a pretty good shot... especially when matched up against an unarmed, unsuspecting crowd. Germany needs to reconsider their gun laws, not their paintball laws. I doubt that banning guns would deter a motivated individual anyway.

      But you've got to remember that Germany has had a hard-on for paintball for a while. They have ridiculously low velocity limits, you can almost jump out of the way of the paintballs. Also, German paint markers have to be certified and F-stamped or they are considered unregistered firearms.

      It kind of sucks for paintballers, but I think that the atrocities of WWII remain in the collective German subconscious to some extent. So it isn't unreasonable that they are hypersensitive about any activity that could even be construed as promoting violence.

    22. Re:Really Germany? by portalcake625 · · Score: 1

      (cue Nazi Germany jokes)

    23. Re:Really Germany? by siloko · · Score: 5, Funny

      The range is measured in feet instead of meters as would be the case with rifles.

      So rifles are metric! How very 21st Century, perhaps they're more accurate too!

    24. Re:Really Germany? by rts008 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While I see your point, there are several things I would like to address.

      I know at least two people with military training who also play. I can, and routinely do, tag them both.

      I commend your skills.
      But...I have trained with both MILES gear, and paintballs while in active service, and have 'played' paintball' as a civilian.[getting banned is not fun]

      Playing 'paintball' is in the same 'mental category' as playing 'Battlefield 1942' on a public server. You can respawn, or just collect your gear and go home.
      'Real life' combat is much more harsher than that.
      I do not mean to dismiss/diminish your 'skills', as attitude is as as important in 'real life' combat as training/skills are. You, with your 'paintball play', have exhibited this 'attitude', and have developed some technical proficiency. That I will not deny, or demean...it does mean a lot in 'real life' combat!

      However...
      We 'know' that we will 'respawn', or 'collect our gear' and go home, so it does affect our 'gameplay' and tactics. I have been kicked out/off several paintball courses and game servers for taking advantage of my 'real life' combat skills/experience for 'cheating'.
      I now have to travel quite a distance to 'play paintball' due to being 'banned' locally. I hate that, because it is 'good training'!...keeps me from getting 'rusty'.[again, I am not denying your 'experience'!)

      What I am really trying to say is this:
      Keep the faith, bro!
      Having the 'mindset', and the ability to apply it is more than 'half the battle',
      I would take you in on my team, just from/by your attitude.
      The 'mental levels' require an 'active, alert, analytic' frame of mind. 'Playing paintball' provides that. What could be bad with that?

      Just don't get yourself convinced you are in 'my league'(and others like me) because you 'survived' on a paintball course...but you do provide a valid/important data point....and may still 'tag' my ass!
      Damn Kids! Get off my lawn!(out of paintball range!)
      And 'turn that crap down!'
      It was a crazy world back then... ;-) :-) ;-) :-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    25. Re:Really Germany? by SlashWombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This happened in Australia after a massacre which triggered drastic Gun law legislation changes. It put many paint ball places out of business. They are starting to re-appear now though. (Just wait for the next massacre though.)

      From at least one of the Australian tragedies, it can be deduced that military training is more of an issue than paint ball ... I wonder what an examination in one of the most violent gun cultures on earth would show?

    26. Re:Really Germany? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I won't deny what you say, but to paint them with such a broad brush is as farcical as painting 'Americans' as supporting GWB currently.
      As of 1979-1980, I can attest that the 'German' populace has a significant influence on their gov't. and policy. See: Berlin Wall.

      Are we *that much* different here in the USA?

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    27. Re:Really Germany? by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It can serve as a form of combat training, especially for close-quarters combat. I used to play with some soldiers on an Army base who would train with paintguns for just that reason. They said that the military laser systems were rampant with cheaters and they also wanted the soldiers to feel the sting of being shot. (This was 10 years ago, maybe they have improved the laser systems since then.)

      I'm sorry, feel the sting of being shot? Paintballs leave welts. Gunshots leave holes. That doesn't just "sting".

      Unless you meant that as more along the lines of denying cheaters the opportunity to claim they weren't hit, which happens much too often in airsoft matches. With paint or lasers though, it isn't about the sting of being hit, so much as it is about there being physical evidence of a hit.

      Paintball really honed my snap shooting skills and I have found that directly translates to shooting real firearms. I find that shooting trap or skeet with my shotgun is almost exactly like shooting a paintgun at a moving target. I also think that it improves defensive pistol shooting where you aren't carefully aiming at a target, but just trying to draw and hit it quickly.

      Snap shooting, maybe. Marksmanship, no. And I can get you three guys who know more of shooting than I who I've paintballed with to back me up on this.

      Over short distances the difference is lead and dip is going to matter less. You'll be off be a few inches. Medium range, it's more like a few feet. With a shotgun, that might matter a bit less, though (given enough spread).

      And anyone used to shooting a paintball marker is going to be in for a rude shock when a shotgun kicks them hard enough to dislocate their shoulder. Recoil control is a really big deal with guns.

      I get where you're coming from, but from the sound of it, most of your marksmanship skills come from actual firearms. Somebody who trains on a marker isn't going to have that.

      I know Germany keeps the velocity low (210??), but it's 280-285 in the US at insured fields, and a lot of people who play on their own fields turn it up to 300 fps.

      We're still talking a full order of magnitude lower than a rifle though, and less than a third the muzzle velocity of a pistol.

      That said, I totally agree that in paintball, cooperation is key. The angry or solo players are usually taken out early... unless they are really good.

      Which, conveniently, makes the whole "oh, it'll train psychos" argument even more lame. I'd kinda think that paintball would give the loners a chance to make friends with like-minded people. Teamwork can be good for that sometimes.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    28. Re:Really Germany? by ardor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Germany, where you can watch two people shit in eachothers mouths while doing backflips, and where you'll get arrested for doing "the gun" with your hand.

      Funny thing is, in the US it is exactly the other way round. Dozens of firearms in the house, even automatic ones? Hey, no problem! Dare to show a female nipple on TV? This goes straight to the Supreme Court.

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    29. Re:Really Germany? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have said "yards" to make it consistent :-)

      You can hit a man-sized stationary target with a rifle at a distance of tens to hundreds of yards easily. Doesn't even take much training, beyond how to fire it.

      You can hit a man-sized stationary target with a paintball marker at a distance of tens to hundreds of feet with a little luck. More if it's a good marker.

      It's the kinda thing that defeats the argument that one is much like the other.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    30. Re:Really Germany? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Oh, I should clarify. I'm under no illusions as to the usefulness of paintball skills in a gunfight. If you reread my post, you'll see that was kinda the point. Someone can't just train on a marker, get a real gun, and go on a shooting spree. Or, they can, but they won't do any better than if they just skipped step one.

      No, my reason for mentioning that I've fought people with real training and won on a paintball field is more to show how little that training relates to the sport. The best player I know has no training of any kind, though he does have hyperfocusing from ADD and a fondness for shooting.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    31. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gunshots leave holes.

      It's called body armor retard. It's made of kevlar and sometimes includes hard ceramic plate inserts, and it stings when you get shot but it won't leave a hole.

    32. Re:Really Germany? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Against military rounds? Yeah, it will leave a hole. Pistol calibre rounds are another story, but he was talking about soldiers.

      Also, even with body armour, being shot with a gun is nothing like being tagged with a marker. Gunshots that kevlar can stop still impact with enough force to fracture ribs and leave extensive bruising. The worst welt I ever got from a marker was from being bunkered at point blank range with a marker set too high - it left a bruise on my arm the width of a shot glass. Nothing major, and I recovered by the next match.

      So, I am not a retard. You, on the other hand...

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    33. Re:Really Germany? by agw · · Score: 1

      It can serve as a form of combat training, especially for close-quarters combat. I used to play with some soldiers on an Army base who would train with paintguns for just that reason. They said that the military laser systems were rampant with cheaters and they also wanted the soldiers to feel the sting of being shot. (This was 10 years ago, maybe they have improved the laser systems since then.)

      Lasers you say? Will be legally banned as well. Have been on the public shit list for the last 10 years already ("Laserdrom").

    34. Re:Really Germany? by uglyduckling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good post.

      But, seriously, you 'need' to 'stop' putting 'single quotes' around every other 'word'.

    35. Re:Really Germany? by kno3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am English, and have spent a large amount of time living in Germany and the US. I would say that Germany is very similar to the US in many ways, definitely a lot more like the US than the UK is. You share a lot of sentiments, such as you fighting to preserve the right of the individual, something that we pay far less attention to in the UK (thank god). Something that I admire about your two peoples is that you are both very friendly. Travelling around the US and Germany you are made to feel similarly welcome. Places like some of the more closed off small US towns deep in the country also have parallels in Germany, although admittedly it is far less obvious.

    36. Re:Really Germany? by malcomreynolds · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would say that the USA is very much different from Germany when it comes to violence. Just look at the level of violence allowed in primetime TV in both countries and you will see that violence is an integral part of American culture. A 1 second shot of a woman's breast is cause for a national outrage, and it is even more pathetic when you consider that it was during an event which is pure violence. The USA has it's priorities backwards. I saw a .sig once that said "I'm European. I'm afraid of guns not boobs." When you consider the number of violent crimes per capita, the percentage of the population in prison and the recidivism rate, I think Germans and Europeans in general are doing something right.

    37. Re:Really Germany? by spanky+the+monk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      such as you fighting to preserve the right of the individual, something that we pay far less attention to in the UK (thank god)

      Maybe that's why, in the UK, there are CCTV cameras watching your every move.

    38. Re:Really Germany? by 0xygen · · Score: 1

      If they take this "simulated shooting causes real shootings" logic further though, surely it means the next step will be to ban violent video games and then movies?

    39. Re:Really Germany? by kno3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why, in the UK, there are CCTV cameras watching your every move.

      ...and much safety and security is had by all. Plus there is the added bonus that we get loads of hilarious clips that can go on youtube.

    40. Re:Really Germany? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Germany turning into France? Never thought I'd see the day.

    41. Re:Really Germany? by chrispugh · · Score: 1

      Bushes give a 6+ cover save all the time.

    42. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah...you go and accept your padded cell while we over here in the US will keep our individual liberties and look for sane ways to curb violence without having to go the way of a police state. Hey at least you know your Government will keep you safe on the internet too as they are going to monitor every move you make on it. Yeah you can say it is up to the ISPs to retain the info etc but do you really think that ISPs aren't going to comply without some persuasion. Look at what happened with the telecoms and the NSA, do you really think AT&T actually cared about playing the part of big brother? It probably costs them unnecessary amounts of money but knew that going against the wishes of the Government would have dire consequences in the long run (see QWest). I will happily take the risks of living life while looking for ways to curb gun violence without treating people like children while you guys can take your stray jackets and your daily ration of happy pills.

    43. Re:Really Germany? by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      They're still cool 'cause they don't have G.W. Bush. In fact, every country is cooler and more free than the US /sarcasm

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    44. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not really - they banned laser tag too :/

    45. Re:Really Germany? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      I believe Germany already banned laser sports, although it's possible I'm misinformed.

    46. Re:Really Germany? by mikkelm · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I've got some farm equipment that needs selling.

    47. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      members of an angry enough but otherwise untrained populace to commit violent acts

      Of course, they focus is not to figuring out why people are angry enough to commit violent acts but to sanction the service industry. EU mercantilism at its business. Since the German goverment seems to think there is a causation between paint ball and school violence, perhaps I'm free to speculate that the current mercantilism leads to absolutism as the history has taught us.

    48. Re:Really Germany? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder what an examination in one of the most violent gun cultures on earth would show?

      Not as much as you might think. No universal military service here, so fewer people with military training than your average European country.

      Mostly what the USA shows is that criminalizing recreational drugs produces criminals, who shoot each other fighting over drug profits.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    49. Re:Really Germany? by neuromanc3r · · Score: 1

      Any elections upcoming?

      Yes, the election for the Bundestag (German federal parliament, arguable the most important election) is in a couple of months.

    50. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you hear about the new German microwave oven?

      Seats 500.

    51. Re:Really Germany? by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of all the people I know that play (or used to play) paintball, not one of them even owned guns.

      Goddamned, I'm sick of people parading around their lack of experience with guns as if it were a fucking virtue. The second amendment was written specifically to have an armed populace so the government wouldn't get oppressive. Now it's chic to never have touched a gun, good job, the government fucking loves you and can send in the swat teams without any worry.

      What if this guy didn't have a gun?
      http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

      I don't care if they never handled guns, but the way some people go around telling others they never had a gun as if they never "sullied" themselves with one. Yes good citizen, good job.

      This move by Germany is stupid beyond all belief. They don't have real freedom of speech, they are locking down on guns, etc. The whole reason oppressive regimes rise up isn't because the people have too many freedoms but because of these ever more powerful and centralized states and the worship of the idea of the all-knowing state. Just look at the number of police they have, insane beyond all reason and armed with light tanks, armored personnell carriers, etc.

      They should take some instructions from Switzerland, where the populace is well-armed (and trained).

    52. Re:Really Germany? by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Really? Study after study has shown that CCTV does nothing to affect the crime rate. Cameras are security theater.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    53. Re:Really Germany? by bryanp · · Score: 1

      Of all the people I know that play (or used to play) paintball, not one of them even owned guns.

      In my experience that's because most people who own and shoot real guns find that shooting a paintball gun just doesn't compare. Recoil therapy - it's a great stress reliever.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    54. Re:Really Germany? by bryanp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny thing is, in the US it is exactly the other way round. Dozens of firearms in the house, even automatic ones? Hey, no problem!

      Not exactly true. As someone who owns "dozens" of firearms (currently at 26 because I haven't sold 4 I don't want anymore, so yeah ...) and is reasonably familiar with the relevant laws, obtaining an automatic firearm is not as easy as many people would like to believe. It's involves a substantial background check, getting permission from your local law enforcment, and several other obnoxious hoops. The process is time consuming, somewhat complicated and quite expensive. The laws affecting automatic weapons have made them an exceptionally pricey hobby. I could easily point you at many lower-end models that would cost me as much as my entire collection of bolt action, lever action, pump action, revolving, and semi-automatic firearms.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    55. Re:Really Germany? by Pepebuho · · Score: 1

      While we are at it, let us ban kitchen knives!!! How many young ones learn and practice how to slice and dice people while eating their read meat!

    56. Re:Really Germany? by Schugy · · Score: 0

      I'm still cool and I haven't voted for these social and christian idiots. If I ever try out paintballing I have to go to the Czech Republic. Mad enough, I've had to go to the Bundeswehr (German Army) and shoot with real ammo. At least there're still some kilometres of the Autobahn without a speed limit. That's something that's still really cool.

    57. Re:Really Germany? by theturtlemoves · · Score: 0

      Really? What powerful people wish to ban paintball, and what do they stand gain from it? This is a knee-jerk reaction of people reacting to a tragedy, and willing to try anything to make sure it doesn't happen again, not a vast secret conspiracy to fulfil some nebulous goal of world domination. Just because it's wrong, and unlikely to work doesn't mean it's sinister.

      --
      Empires grow and crumble, and the Turtle Moves. Gods come and go, and still the Turtle Moves. The Turtle Moves.
    58. Re:Really Germany? by adona1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The second amendment was written specifically to have an armed populace so the government wouldn't get oppressive.

      Speaking as a non-American, I'm interested in just when you guys are going to utilise the second amendment you're so fond of for that purpose. My personal bet is this side of never....

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    59. Re:Really Germany? by timothy · · Score: 1

      What guns are you bored with? :)

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    60. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Untrained? There is conscription in Germany, almost half of the German male population had military training.

    61. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be stupid. Even counter strike helps train psychos. Its simple awareness skills that matter the most anyway. My .22 LR has no recoil, but its an awesome training substitute for a 308 in long gun form or for for my 1911 kimber. Your defense is weak and you will never win with this argument. You know why? Sitting at home with a pencil and paper will help you train for these crimes. So cut the bullshit and find another argument, because this one is a loser like you.

    62. Re:Really Germany? by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Ah yes... like when we flattened eastern Europe, subjugated the French and tossed bombs over UK... the good ol' times.

    63. Re:Really Germany? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Then the German populace probably ought to work on removing people stupid enough to conflate the shooting that happened (which would have happened ANYHOW- you don't get "desensitized" and shoot that many people without having a serious mental problem that would have let you do that anyhow...) with paintballing. If the plugged for this law, they need to be removed from office. Period.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    64. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because one is a private property, an intrinsic right given by the constitution, while the other is public property by virtue of broadcast (and hence regulatable by the FCC--still no the government per se).

    65. Re:Really Germany? by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Depends on the body armor, actually. They've devised body armor that'll shrug off most military rounds like regular kevlar shrugs off pistol rounds. Even do a one-shot protection against a fragmentation grenade at point blank range.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    66. Re:Really Germany? by Terminal+Saint · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are plenty of examples of people having been shot(even with assault and battle rifles) and failing to notice until later. Adrenaline is a powerful thing and it's better to teach a soldier to fight through having been shot. A paintball at close range hurts a lot more than a MILES laser, and is still a useful tool toward that objective.

      An FBI wounding study found that even with their heart destroyed, a suitably determined individual can preform voluntary actions for 10-15 seconds. Furthermore, it reached the conclusion that often a combatant drops out of the fight not because they'd been physiologically rendered unable to fight, but because they saw how bad a gunshot wound looked and psychologically gave up.

      --
      It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
    67. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't "combat training" of any sort.

      I disagree. Paintball can be very good combat training for some aspects of combat.

      The weapons don't work the same way - paintball guns are generally pump-action, semi-auto or work via electronic "ramping" systems, which do not resemble fire selection modes on firearms in the slightest.

      Pump and semi-auto as well as full auto firearms are used in combat and paintball guns don't have fire modes different enough from real firearms to be significant. I just don't buy this argument. I mean, my pump paintball gun and my brother's pump .22 are not that different in use as far as the action is concerned. My semi-auto rifle and his semi-auto paintball gun again are pretty similar.

      The recoil is practically non-existent.

      I agree this is a significant difference (although the same can be said of a .22 or .177HMR). For the most part though, this is a big difference. That doesn't mean paintball guns aren't useful for training.

      The range is measured in feet instead of meters as would be the case with rifles.

      This is probably the biggest thing. For outdoor settings, the range on paintball guns is very short. I used to play paintball with one of the old, classic rifles and I"d muzzle load a round with fins. That brought the effective range up to about the same as a real firearm pistol, a poor training tool for types of combat. Still, for indoor settings or other games where there are short ranges they are quite useful. I used to play in abandoned buildings with a good mix of military and police players and they certainly considered it to be training as well as fun. In closer quarters, the range of paintballs is not an issue. You can use the same aiming skills with real firearms and paintballs and they are excellent training for rapid target acquisition and use of cover. At 30 feet, you have to start correcting a bit for paintballs dropping. But really, even then it is not significant.

      The fields at which you play paintball are generally symmetrical (for speedball), or at least balanced.

      No, the fields where YOU play are generally symmetrical. I've played in random areas of forest, abandoned buildings, old military bunker complexes on army reserve training facilities, and in many other locations. Different people play different types of paintball games.

      About the only combat skill relevant to real life warfare and paintball is cooperation.

      Cooperation skills are better learned in video game training. Paintball is better for the physical side of things.

      Since the "angry, but otherwise untrained" people you're talking about commit solo acts of violence, paintball would be useless training for them.

      I take it you've never met the Michigan Militia? There are plenty of angry kooks out there who are potential mass murderers. Some in the past have worked in groups and there is real potential for that in future. I've met white supremacists and survivalists and militia and religious groups who all could use paintball to train to be more effective at going out and killing people as a group and paintball is still useful for training the individual. That's not to say it should be banned, mind you. Actual target practice with real firearms makes people potentially more effective killers. So does hunting. So does reading the right books. I'm not scared enough to go along with reactionaries who want a solution, any solution, so they can feel like something is being done and be less scared. I'm willing to consider real measures to reduce the potential of mass slayings, but I consider such things part of the price we all pay to live free.

    68. Re:Really Germany? by niko9 · · Score: 1

      What are they going to do next

      Make you wear a helmet while driving your car.

      Worse. And with apologies to George Carlin, you'll have to wear a helmet just to jerk off.

    69. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it's pretty funny that paintball gun performance happens to be rated by "fps" =)

    70. Re:Really Germany? by kno3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, many implamentations of CCTV do not reduce crime, they increase prosecutions, but don't prevent people from committing the crime. CCTV is a very difficult thing to get right, however if it is done right it has been shown to have a desirable effect on crime in some areas. It is very difficult to get right, and the police are the biggest perpetrators of installing and using it in the wrong way, it has to be said. They tend to use it purely as a method of catching the criminal (which it is good at doing) and not stopping the criminal before he commits the crime. They do this by not placing cameras in obvious places etc... And you can see why they do this, unfortunately officers performance is judged by how many people they catch, if they go out stopping everybody from committing crime, they wont have anyone to catch.
      But I don't have any problem with CCTV; I wouldn't want it in my house, or observing me in a private place, but if I am in a public space I think that if having CCTV cameras watching me isn't going to cause me any harm at all, in fact it may well protect me. If people want to abuse it and watch me wherever I go (in public) then fine, they can, they are going to have a very boring time.

    71. Re:Really Germany? by swillden · · Score: 1

      obtaining an automatic firearm is not as easy as many people would like to believe. It's involves a substantial background check, getting permission from your local law enforcment, and several other obnoxious hoops. The process is time consuming, somewhat complicated and quite expensive.

      The process isn't that hard, and it's not expensive at all. $200. The process is identical to that required to get many other NFA items, such as suppressors, and lots of people have those.

      The laws affecting automatic weapons have made them an exceptionally pricey hobby.

      Yes, but not because of the hoops you have to jump through. The reason they're crazy expensive is because they were banned in 1987. Automatic weapons in civilian hands at that time were grandfathered in, but no new weapons are allowed to enter the market, so the supply is fixed. Fixed supply and growing demand means ever-rising prices.

      As a result, you have a tough time finding ANY legally purchasable machine gun for under $10,000, and many of the more desirable ones go for in excess of $30,000.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    72. Re:Really Germany? by kd5zex · · Score: 1

      And anyone used to shooting a paintball marker is going to be in for a rude shock when a shotgun kicks them hard enough to dislocate their shoulder.

      I literally lol'ed at this. You need to turn off the TV and head out to the skeet range. You will find women and children shooting these shotguns which you claim will dislocate shoulders.

      While bone / joint damage can occur from shooting it usually happens with very large loads and poorly designed or lightweight rifles. Poor technique can also contribute.

    73. Re:Really Germany? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      they are locking down on guns

      Actually I think some real batshittery is that whilst actual guns merely get some greater controls on access to them, paintballing on the other hand gets an outright ban!

      (I'm not saying whether the extra controls on guns are right or wrong, I just think this case exemplifies the way that role-playing and simulation are not only scapegoated as a cause, but sometimes treated worse than the things which can actually kill.)

    74. Re:Really Germany? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      And the next step after that will be to ban computer games where you pretend to play a paintballer...

      Actually though, there have been calls to ban computer games too ("other ideas include a violence quota for television"). All in the name of "parents of victims" - never underestimate the political power of a grieving parent. I've seen it happen here in the UK too. It seems like if someone you know dies, you get national media attention for whatever political cause you want to lobby for. Personally I think it's sick to use a murdered person's name in order to push your own political agenda - if I should get murdered, I hope no one ever dares try to use my name.

      What I want to know though is does this ban on paintballing also cover water pistols - I mean, does this image from Doctor Who not "trivialise violence"???

    75. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the only combat skill relevant to real life warfare and paintball is cooperation. Both a paintball team and military squad need to communicate, coordinate and cover each other.

      So what you're saying is, what we REALLY need to do is ban all games/sports that require communication and coordination since these skills can obviously be used for violent purposes. I'll go get the lobbying started!

    76. Re:Really Germany? by Danse · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a non-American, I'm interested in just when you guys are going to utilise the second amendment you're so fond of for that purpose. My personal bet is this side of never....

      If we're lucky we'll never have to. It's not like we've stocked up and are just itching to overthrow the government. It's meant to be a last resort, not an alternative to elections or a way of expressing our dissatisfaction with an election outcome. There's no telling what the aftermath would be like either. It's pretty scary to think about, but it's also scary to think about not even having that option. Things have gotten fairly bad, but I don't think anyone can seriously say that we've exhausted our options at this point. For a non-American, you certainly seem eager for people to pull the trigger.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    77. Re:Really Germany? by atamido · · Score: 1

      I wonder what an examination in one of the most violent gun cultures on earth would show?

      Mostly what the USA shows is that...

      I know it's fun to think of the USA as full of a bunch of gun toting maniacs, but it isn't really that bad. I live in Texas and most of the people I know have never even touched a gun. It doesn't hold a candle to most African nations, or some European ones. Sadly, most of those countries don't seem to have a strong paintball culture.

      What would be a lot more useful is to see what percentage of violent criminals in prison have ever shot a paintball gun, then compare that to the national average.

    78. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it matter if the guy doesn't know/care about the fps and all that crap? Maybe he just went out to have fun?

      Anyway, about the article, does this mean we should ban baseball because baseball bats are used in fights?

    79. Re:Really Germany? by Danse · · Score: 1

      Of all the people I know that play (or used to play) paintball, not one of them even owned guns.

      In my experience that's because most people who own and shoot real guns find that shooting a paintball gun just doesn't compare. Recoil therapy - it's a great stress reliever.

      Paintball, at least in most of the places I've played, has devolved into an arms race to see who can spray the most paint. I used to play indoor games with pump-action markers, which was fun and had a much more tactical nature than the current types of games that most places run where it's basically a speedball field or just an open area with various types of cover and each team just blazes away at the other. Unless you have a team that trains together regularly, you pretty much don't stand a chance. Pick-up games are pointless.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    80. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, feel the sting of being shot? Paintballs leave welts. Gunshots leave holes. That doesn't just "sting".

      No, but it sure is distracting when you're shooting at someone and you're hit yourself. It can ruin a shot whereas with lasers you might not even know you've been hit until you take several more shots. Additionally, the sting of a paintball is a punishment that makes people much less willing to risk themselves, whereas with laser tag some players have no motivation not to take absurd risks. Both of these make paintballs more useful training tools than lasers (for some aspects).

      Snap shooting, maybe. Marksmanship, no.

      Snap shooting is one type of marksmanship and one that relies a lot on muscle memory trained by repetition. With a high power rifle you have all the time in the world and pay attention to your breathing and trigger control. It takes practice, of course, but it relies heavily on concentration and learning. Snap shooting relies upon training reactions so that in the heat of the moment your gross motor skills inhibited by adrenaline will still put the barrel close enough, really quickly. This is an essential skill for most types of modern combat and for the kind of thing that happens with many of these mass killings.

      Over short distances the difference is lead and dip is going to matter less.

      At short ranges with the kind of aiming that applies to the real world, paintball guns I've used are just fine for hitting a man sized target.

      With a shotgun, that might matter a bit less, though (given enough spread).

      Shotgun spread is not going to be big enough to make much of a difference for virtually any real combat situation. At close range with shot heavy enough for use on people, it's really about the stopping power of a bunch of pellets, they are all going to be within a few inches though.

      And anyone used to shooting a paintball marker is going to be in for a rude shock when a shotgun kicks them hard enough to dislocate their shoulder.

      Hard enough to dislocate a shoulder? Come on already. My 12 gauge is probably the most common shotgun round and at the bigger end of what you see in real use (there are a few 10 gauges out there these days but they are uncommon and the recoil is not that different). You'd have to be pretty fragile to dislocate your shoulder no matter how badly you hold it. When I was 13 years old (and not big for my age) I hunted with a 12 gauge and in the excitement of trying to rapidly aim and fire at a bird, misplaced the butt of my shotgun more than once. Sure I had a bruise to show for it sometimes, but dislocated shoulder... no. Unless the shooter is firing a full auto shotgun or a .50BMG or something crazy and exotic, recoil will not actually injure them.

      Recoil control is a really big deal with guns.

      Learning to handle recoil and (more importantly) not flinch, is important for accurate shooting. That said, I can hand my .22 rifle with three 30 round mags to someone who has never fired a gun before and they will empty them and not have any real problem with recoil (that is how I introduce many people to the sport). Not having a lot or recoil does not make paintball guns useless for training. any guns don't have a lot of recoil and recoil doesn't matter till after the first shot.

      We're still talking a full order of magnitude lower than a rifle though...

      I don't understand this argument. Do you use low enough muzzle velocity on your paintball guns that people can jump out of the way? At longer ranges you have to worry about how far a shot will drop (and how inaccurate a light paint ball is compared to a real bullet), but I think it is clear paintball guns are good training tools for short ranges only.

      Which, conveniently, makes the whole "oh, it'l

    81. Re:Really Germany? by atamido · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, feel the sting of being shot? Paintballs leave welts. Gunshots leave holes. That doesn't just "sting".

      So? He's talking specifically about close rang combat. The motivation for not getting shot in a video game is pretty low because you can just start again the next round. The same thing happens in laser tag. In paintball you're a bit more cautious because getting shot at close range with a 300fps ball of paint hurts, even through a few layers of clothing.

      Maybe if they made the controller to first person shooters deliver an electric shock when being shot people would be more cautious and would have a similar effect?

    82. Re:Really Germany? by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      Hopefully never, but in the meantime it's a bargaining chip. Have you been following the recent US talk of secession and law nullification? Eg., Montana actually just passed a law declaring that guns manufactured in that state are not subject to federal gun laws! (Those laws that are "justified" under our "interstate commerce" loophole, anyway.) Texas is working on a stronger version of the same law.

      Guns are a focal point for resistance to what some of us see as illegal federal action. If we lose the guns, it becomes harder to even claim we might fight under some circumstances. Any overreaching politician can then do what he likes and count on using force to impose his will, as has happened in Germany.

      In other words, a rattlesnake's rattle is only threatening if it hasn't been defanged.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    83. Re:Really Germany? by Danse · · Score: 1

      Good post.

      But, seriously, you 'need' to 'stop' putting 'single quotes' around every other 'word'.

      Amen to that.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    84. Re:Really Germany? by Danse · · Score: 1

      Germany turning into France? Never thought I'd see the day.

      Germany has been worse than France on this kind of thing for a long time.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    85. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe we like boobs and it's nice.

    86. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes indeed, with Finland, Denmark and the UK having more crimes per capita and Germany, Italy and France having less crimes per capita... um wait.

      [url]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita[/url]

    87. Re:Really Germany? by woot+account · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango?

    88. Re:Really Germany? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Speaking as an American,

      It's way too late. The government has greatly superior weaponry and has shown throughout history that it is willing to use it on our own citizens, veterans, students, etc. to maintain order.

      If you want to be prepared to fight an oppressive government, you would be much better off to look into IED's as foreign countries have shown us. And even there, the government will stomp you (like it did in faluja (sp)).

      The two great democracies are showing much stronger fascist tendencies and surveillance tendencies than a lot of countries viewed as more oppressive around the world.

      On the other hand, everything goes to hell from overpopulation in the next 30 to 50 years anyway so how doe sit matter anyway?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    89. Re:Really Germany? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      In other words, a rattlesnake's rattle is only threatening if it hasn't been defanged.

      It's never threatening if the poacher already has it by the neck.

    90. Re:Really Germany? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is Germany we're talking about, so that should start,

      First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak up because I was not a Nazi...

    91. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what 'automatic' means in the context of firearms.

    92. Re:Really Germany? by DoubleF · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's paintball that caused a school shooting...

    93. Re:Really Germany? by Shamenaught · · Score: 1

      The problem with guns is that to fight one, you need one. Criminals need one if they're gonna break into somewhere that might have one. Home owners need one if criminals are gonna be busting into their houses with guns. It ups the odds.

      Living in a country where gun crime is much less prevalent, I feel much safer knowing that if someone wants to hurt me: they've got to give me a good sound thrashing.

      Your example could have gone much worse for someone in a similar scenario, if they pulled a gun on some criminals. What if they only planned a burglary, and instead the guy pulling a gun on the two armed intruders freaked them into killing everyone there? Heck, one girl in the article was shot several times. Isn't that a sign that guns are a liability? What if the criminals didn't have easy access to firearms, might that stop them from attempting such a heist in the first place?

      Also, do you really think that the people with small arms could rise up and take down the government? Have you ever seen the videos shot from an AC130? You say angry mob, they say red splatter. Unless you start having civilians with SOTA military gear, tanks and all, then the military would wipe them out.

      --
      mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
    94. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, douches are usually in the "oldstyle" measurements, about a pint or so....

    95. Re:Really Germany? by Shamenaught · · Score: 1

      If I hadn't already posted here, I'd have modded this insightful.

      Do bear in-mind, however, that the violent criminals in prison are the one's who've been caught. Also, if you only take a snapshot in the jail at one time, then it'd be skewed towards people in there for longer. Perhaps that's better if you want to factor severity of crimes into the mix, but a better sample would be everyone jailed over some period (say, a year).

      --
      mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
    96. Re:Really Germany? by atamido · · Score: 1

      Yeah, limiting the scope to a time period would certainly be more useful.

      I had one friend growing up that's in prison, and I know he played paintball once. So far in my tests 100% of prisoners play paintball. I guess I should work on increasing my sample size now.

    97. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have. Your statement is like dividing like zero; do you now go to purgatory?

      American Revolution
      Whiskey Rebellion
      American Civil War
      Prohibition, gang wars, northeast trafficing
      current drug wars
      Black Panthers
      Michigan militia groups

      Many more. A lot of these are alcohol/drug issues, others are free speech and "freedom" related. Usually, the gun owners lose, but the point is generally made due to the news getting out, due to the first amendment.

      The purpose of the second amendment is to stave off oppression, not blow away the current government. You seem to have read the second amendment in the form of the latter, which would be treason. Even during Katrina, when many gun owners put up a fight, it was political and legal using guns as an issue of government intrusion, warrantless home invasion, removal of private property without due process, etc., not by firing bullets.

      Hell, there are entire swaths in or just outside LA the police don't really do much in and stay the hell out of.

    98. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An FBI wounding study found that even with their heart destroyed, a suitably determined individual can preform voluntary actions for 10-15 seconds.

      Damn, but I'm glad I passed up the $40 volunteer participant study in the Langley section of craigslist that day!

    99. Re:Really Germany? by Shamenaught · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, is he in prison for violent or gun-related crime?

      --
      mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
    100. Re:Really Germany? by atamido · · Score: 1

      No, multiple accounts of grand theft auto in Texas and Colorado. Hmmm... The plot thickens.

    101. Re:Really Germany? by ElementalEntropy · · Score: 1

      ...just a way to uppease certain lobby groups that were demanding stricter gun control rules.

      Now, I don't know if it's true, but it does seem like nothing more than a smokescreen manouver on the part of the German government.

      Writing directly from Germany I can say that sadly that's true.

      It's all a part of the usual reactions to a school schooting (or similar). Each and every time the first thing they do, is blame it on shooter games and call for stricter controls for such games (never mind, that we already have one of the strictest age control systems).

      One rogue politician even went so far as to equate playing shooters wich child porn and drug use.

      The call for stricter weapons laws is just the latest half baked political move in trying to look decisive.

      I don't play PaintBall, mainly because it's already well controlled and not too popular here. But I do play games, and personally I'm just getting more and more annoyed and enraged about the whole sharade.

    102. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany has had a hard-on for paintball for a while

      I don't think that word means what you think it means...

    103. Re:Really Germany? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      An FBI wounding study found that even with their heart destroyed, a suitably determined individual can preform voluntary actions for 10-15 seconds.

      I know I'm gonna regret asking this, but how do you test something like that?

    104. Re:Really Germany? by aurispector · · Score: 1

      The thing nobody is talking about is the massive increase in governmental power with the advent of remotely accessible computerized databases. Having information on file in paper form is one thing; someone has to physically pull out the paper to see it. Placing that information in a database that the government can access at will is quite another. There used to be physical limitations to how much they could track people. Now they can pull your bank card records, cell phone records, virtually anything if they want it. Now we all leave a much longer paper trail, except it's all digital. When I think of all the instances I've heard about police and government officials abusing power, it gives me pause to think these same people could leverage all that data. Government is only as good as the people running it and unless there's some serious need, the cameras bother me. I can understand cameras limited to busy public areas like train stations, but surveillance for surveillance's sake is a solution to what problem?

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    105. Re:Really Germany? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What elections? That farce theater there? How do you not realize that the whole point of it, is to keep you from using your guns and/or hang them? Imagine the exact same situation that is now, but without elections, and without any information about the politics getting out.

      Would the population rise up? You can bet on it!

      So all that crooked spin doctoring and beating around the bush, and the whole "election" theater just keep you off of it, while actually meaning exactly nothing for your freedom to choose a government.

      That's the problem. The real problem. And that's why I read books about rhetorics, logic in speeches, psychological manipulation and and neuro-linguistic programming right now. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    106. Re:Really Germany? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      But the pickelhaube keeps hitting the ceiling.

    107. Re:Really Germany? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the line had turned 90 degrees from where it was. Previously, people were responsible for their own safety and the safety of their families/clans, etc. The courts dispensed justice after a crime was committed, but the job of preventing it or defending against it was the individuals.

      Around the middle of the 18th century the concept of police emerged. These were not agents of the court, but agents of the government and had an additional charge - prevention of crime. From http://law.jrank.org/pages/1639/Police-History-beginning-modern-policing-in-England.html :

      This group, called the Bow Street Runners, was the first group paid through public funds that emphasized crime prevention in addition to crime investigation and apprehension of criminals. While citizens responsible for social control used to simply react to crimes, the Bow Street Runners added the responsibility of preventing crime through preventive patrol, changing the system of policing considerably.

      Despite the Bow Street Runners' efforts, most English citizens were opposed to the development of a police force. Their opposition was based on two related factors: (1) the importance placed on individual liberties, and (2) the English tradition of local government (Langworthy and Travis). To reconcile these issues with the development of a police force, a Scottish magistrate, Patrick Colquhoun, developed the science of policing in the late 1700s (Langworthy and Travis). Colquhoun suggested that police functions must include detection of crime, apprehension of offenders, and prevention of crime through their presence in public. The function of crime prevention was supported by other influential scholars at the time. In his 1763 essay On Crimes and Punishment, Italian theorist Cesare Beccaria proposed that "it is better to prevent crimes than to punish them" (p. 93).

      For 250 years, the government has been telling it's citizenry that it would protect them. Are we surprised that, when someone is hurt, people demand the protection they were "promised"? And those that wish to protect themselves are viewed as a threat.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    108. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      revolutionary war, civil war, future war when future government screws up

    109. Re:Really Germany? by Suzuran · · Score: 1

      You don't. They came to this conclusion by having a team of researchers go over reports of past incidents. Multiple reports from multiple sources at multiple events saying the same things can be considered valid proof for things that we aren't willing or able to test directly.

    110. Re:Really Germany? by kno3 · · Score: 1

      Placing that information in a database that the government can access at will is quite another.

      They will not access the data without having reason to. The legal position of keeping data on somebody and actually looking up the data is completely different, the former is not spying, the latter is; therefore doing it without due cause is against the law.

      I can understand cameras limited to busy public areas like train stations, but surveillance for surveillance's sake is a solution to what problem?

      So you accept that they are placed in very busy places with good reason, logically less busy places it would have a similar effect, but obviously not as often, because there are less people around. Myself I think that very busy places are not as important to CCTV as less busy places (obviously there is a line beyond which this does not apply, I wouldn't put CCTV atop a mountain) because places that are very busy will be regulated by the vast proportion of well meaning citizens that are present.

      Overall I don't think that your argument linking the two matters stands, because you cant access a CCTV system like you can a database of bank card and mobile phone records. You cant just shove "John Smith" into a search engine and it show you the instances he has appeared on camera (unless they have been working on some serious advances in facial recognition software, and increased the quality of the average CCTV system ten fold).

    111. Re:Really Germany? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      One problem is that it would require a large force to seriously contend with police/National Guard/military. Also, would such resistance have the support of the people?

    112. Re:Really Germany? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Regardless of whether paintball is combat training or not: Germany has a draft. Combat training is not only readily available to every young male - it is actually compulsory.

      Ok, it's certainly possible to get out of military service by serving in other functions, not every position in the army is actually combat-related (though some cooks might belong to the chemical warfare units) driving a tank doesn't do much to prepare you to go on a rampage in a school etc.

      However assuming someone wanted to get combat training - it's accessible. And assuming that playing with fake weapons would actually have the potential to corrupt your mind - how would it be possible that training with real weapons didn't? How can you pass a law against "training with fake weapons" and allow anyone to serve their military service? Wouldn't you have to restrict this to the most stable and balanced individuals, strictly screened with psychological tests, and constantly psychologically monitored?

    113. Re:Really Germany? by mawe · · Score: 1

      heise.de has reported that Laserdrome-like games will be banned, too, if they really get this thing through.

      http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Gotcha-Koalition-plant-Paintball-Verbot--/meldung/137455 (german article)

      --
      I'm afraid Mary is dead.
    114. Re:Really Germany? by adona1 · · Score: 1

      For a non-American, you certainly seem eager for people to pull the trigger.

      No, don't think that, I just see an awful lot of gung-hoism online....bearing in mind that people do tend to talk a lot of crap on the net :)

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    115. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not 1942 anymore....

    116. Re:Really Germany? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      But the Nazi's still rule.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    117. Re:Really Germany? by ghetto2ivy · · Score: 1

      Don't men pee sitting down in Germany? Not sure if a society where fellow men don't pee standing up can be considered cool.

    118. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and your point is what?

    119. Re:Really Germany? by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

      My personal hope is this side of never.

      There's a certain value in the deterrent effect, and even if not, I very much hope we're never pushed to a point where armed insurrection is the only way. As long as politicians stand for reelection and step down when they lose, we won't be there. But the Founders very wisely made sure that we would have the tools to resist if if ever came to that end.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    120. Re:Really Germany? by Xonstantine · · Score: 1

      Some time in between the Super Bowl and the next season of Idol.

    121. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we use it every day dont worry about us

    122. Re:Really Germany? by dreamsofcaffeine · · Score: 1

      Well, too bad that the German populace consists of mostly brainless and easily exploited idiots. They see these laws (i.e. this paintball-banning, stricter gun laws, video-game-banning) as effective. Don't ask me why, as it's been done to death in more rational media why these laws are about as effective as ripping off someone's head and shitting down their neck to cure AIDS.

      And if you happen to be a German: Our Pirate Party still needs more permissions for the upcoming election! http://ich.waehlepiraten.de/

    123. Re:Really Germany? by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Interesting website. Thanks for posting that. Perhaps a better metric would be murders per capita. The US has .042 per 1000 and Germany .011 (3.8 times). And murders per capita with a firearm the US is 6 time higher than Germany.

      You posted crimes per capita but we are talking about violence here and it would appear that Germany is doing something right.

    124. Re:Really Germany? by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      ...and much safety and security is had by all.

      Apparently not. Germany has a lower crime rate and a much lower violent crime rate than the UK.

    125. Re:Really Germany? by instarx · · Score: 1

      The second amendment was written specifically to have an armed populace so the government wouldn't get oppressive.

      Actually that's just your interpretation. Since at the time of its writing soldiers brought their own guns to war, a more logical reading is that a well-regulated militia made up of citizens bringing their own guns is needed to preserve the State.

    126. Re:Really Germany? by tedgyz · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. I play paintball too. The training it gives you is strategy and the general visceral experience of combat. As any first time player will confess, it gives a great appreciation for how easy it is to get hit. You think you can dash across the field to the next shelter, but more often than not you get tagged. If you can translate that experience into what would happen in real combat, it is a valuable lesson.

      Essentially, paintball gives you a do-over that real combat would not give.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    127. Re:Really Germany? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      In a way, that's sad to know.
      Do any European countries still have gonads?

    128. Re:Really Germany? by aurispector · · Score: 1

      They will not access the data without having reason to. The legal position of keeping data on somebody and actually looking up the data is completely different, the former is not spying, the latter is; therefore doing it without due cause is against the law.

      They can and will abuse the data. You're missing my point; why do we trust the people running these systems? Law might technically forbid misuse, but as an example look at the number of times people's medical records have been illegally accessed or hacked in celebrity cases. I'm not talking about official use but about abuse by people with both access and an agenda. And what if the government decides it's ok to start using those systems and the information in ways not originally intended? The Bush administration torture documents show how easy it is to change the rules of the game. You can certainly expect that technology WILL advance to the point where a networked system of high definition cameras with facial recognition technology could track a person anywhere automatically. I'm reasoning from the perspective that a person has a basic right to privacy in his daily actions and that government LACKS the authority to invade that privacy without just cause, particularly because some of the very people operating those systems can and will abuse their power. Think of the worst, most oppressive governments in history, or even in existence now. These technologies provide unprecedented access to people's daily lives. Does the government regard you as responsible and trustworthy or as someone who needs to be watched, shepherded and nannied? What's the difference between being in prison and everyday life? Who holds basic responsibility for your life?

      I used train stations as a pragamatic example because cameras can allow a limited amount of security personnel to cover a larger amount of ground - it doesn't mean I like it or even believe it's effective at protecting me and certainly doesn't mean I want more surveillance. Stop blindly trusting government because government is only as good as the people running it.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    129. Re:Really Germany? by kbmxpxfan · · Score: 2

      This nation started a REVOLUTION because of less that what now now endure.

    130. Re:Really Germany? by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      I agree, we need more boobies on TV!!!

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    131. Re:Really Germany? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      I'd bet it'll be sometime around when the US firebombs a couple thousand of its own people. Or forcibly relocates millions of them.

      The US government has problems, but it isn't a tyranny in the US yet. It's a imperialist power to a few other parts of the world. It's restricted speech and freedoms in ways it shouldn't here. It puts more people in prison than it should (but only after something that comes closer to approximating due process than any totalitarian state I've studied). But for all its faults, just because we're busy fucking up a third world country (but hey, what major power hasn't?) doesn't mean our government is so oppressive that revolution is a better option.

    132. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Europe just got all their killing, slavery, and repression out of the way between 1000 - 1945 AD. ;) They're doing okay, now.

    133. Re:Really Germany? by malcomreynolds · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There was a boob on television almost every day for the last eight years (well at least until the end of January of this year).

    134. Re:Really Germany? by Danse · · Score: 1

      In a way, that's sad to know. Do any European countries still have gonads?

      Not sure that the US is any better really. Look at all the ridiculous laws that get passed because people are so scared of their own shadows that they'll let the politicians get away with anything as long as they say it's to keep the terrorists away. So far they're allowed to arrest pretty much anyone indefinitely, listen in on everyone's phone calls, and can confiscate damn near anything indefinitely. It's really gotten WAY out of hand, primarily due to the fact that people are to scared to oppose this stuff.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    135. Re:Really Germany? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I assume you're referring to the Port Arthur massacre?

      The funny thing is that this guy had an M16 and tonnes of ammo. There are many conspiracy theories that fly around what happened.

      Even now, gun laws in Tasmania are utterly stupid. It is illegal to own any tool that can shoot projectiles - EVEN SLINGSHOTS. I don't know how nail guns got around that - but that's the stupidity of bureaucrats.

    136. Re:Really Germany? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I would say that Germany is very similar to the US in many ways, definitely a lot more like the US than the UK is.

      I entirely disagree. There's the mentality in Germany that if the law doesn't say it's specifically permitted, it's forbidden. UK and USA are pretty much the other way round. Also, German law is a Napoleonic system - it tries to cover all eventualities. UK and USA legal systems are more based on principles.

      Germany also has some severe restrictions on free speech that would never be allowed in the USA without major amendments to the constitution. The UK is starting to move that way, but it's not as bad yet.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    137. Re:Really Germany? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't see how catching criminals doesn't reduce crime. I assume that when they catch them they lock them up for a period of time?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    138. Re:Really Germany? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Even now, gun laws in Tasmania are utterly stupid. It is illegal to own any tool that can shoot projectiles

      I was born with two of those. They're called arms. Better not waer a sleeveless shirt...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    139. Re:Really Germany? by kno3 · · Score: 1

      Mathmatically that would decrease the rate of crime a bit when it was introduced, then it would level off, because you would just have a few more criminals in prison all the time.
      Also cameras are their own worst enemy when it comes to judging them with statistics. Obviously crime rates are actually just reported crime/crime that we know about. Obviously cameras mean that we see more of the crime that happens, thus their effect of reducing crime can be cancelled out in the statistics by the extra crime they let us know about.

    140. Re:Really Germany? by phlinn · · Score: 1

      It depends. They don't have a 'violent crimes per capita' measure, and pinpointing individual crimes is bound to be misleading. The US is also worse on assaults per capita... but germany doesn't have a result for 'assault victims', and although the UK has a much lower per capita assault rate, it's twice the use in terms of percent of the populace which was assaulted. There may be something to the complaints that a specific sub-culture is responsible for most of the US crime statistics.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    141. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do? As far as I know the fascists of Bushs gouvernement are still alive.

    142. Re:Really Germany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to the FTC, the shot of the tit was only 9/16 of a second. won't somebody please think of the children?!

  2. Haven't these people learned? by Fooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Haven't these people learned that they are just going to cause a much bigger problem then they are trying to solve? It saddens me to see how they are going after everything but the cause of it. Banning paintballing isn't going to solve a thing, stuff like this is still going to happen. Next thing you know they are going to try and ban all FPS games over there. Get to the root of the problem, not something they "think" is the cause.

    1. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Each time I hear about some retard in office limiting the People's freedom, my treshhold for committing violent acts upon said retard is significantly lowered.
      Obviously we should ban such retards from office.

    2. Re:Haven't these people learned? by linhares · · Score: 1
      I heard the shooter picked his nose from time to time, when nobody was watching. So that's the right policy. Get those people that pick their noses and throw them in jail for life.

      Won't someone please think about the children?

    3. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What problem? That people kill each other? That's going to be the case no matter what.

      According to the article, the last time they tightened gun laws in Germany was in 2002 in response to a guy killing 16 people. So... that's what, 31 people in 7 years? About 4.5 a year? Statistically, you're more likely to win the lottery than be shot by a crazed gunman. Or be struck by lightning. Hell, you take a bigger risk just crossing the street.

      This isn't about safety. No, these politicians know exactly what they're doing. They LOVE stuff like this happening. It just gives them one more way to subjugate the public. But you'd think the Germans of all people would understand the risks of having an overly powerful government and a largely unarmed populace.

    4. Re:Haven't these people learned? by williamhb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Haven't these people learned that they are just going to cause a much bigger problem then they are trying to solve? It saddens me to see how they are going after everything but the cause of it. Banning paintballing isn't going to solve a thing, stuff like this is still going to happen. Next thing you know they are going to try and ban all FPS games over there. Get to the root of the problem, not something they "think" is the cause.

      Actually some aspects of the proposed laws do indeed get to the root of the problem. For instance tightening the restrictions on how registered guns are stored (the gun in this shooting was registered by the father but was not locked away -- had it been, this particular shooting certainly would have been much more difficult). As it is, there's talk of punishing the father through "involuntary manslaughter" under the existing laws (because the father knew his son was depressed and should have known this might happen) but that seems like vague retribution for the incident having occurred rather than unambiguous preventative legislation instructing gun owners that their guns must be securely locked away. Banning paintball is an odd reaction, but so far this is only a proposed bill -- AFAIK it's usual for proposed bills to be debated and to have things that turn out to be a bit silly taken out of them on the way through parliament (the Bundestag).

    5. Re:Haven't these people learned? by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is the root of the problem? I know it's not video games, music, or any other activity or media that they could honestly care to ban. As far as I can tell it's just that a certain small portion of the population aren't mentally stable and would actually bring a gun to a school, church, etc. and start unloading on people.

      There's no real way to prevent it from happening short of a big brother government with the observational powers mentioned in 1984. Short of that, we just aren't able to tell who's just a little strange and who's going to blast his classmates. People will always like to say that they thought little Billy was a little off, but they've probably thought that about hundreds of other people who didn't go postal.

      I'm sure we can identify some risk factors, but there's no way we can possible identify some root cause until we have a much better understanding of the human brain. There're plenty of mentally unbalanced people who don't go around shooting up the neighborhood. Until they actually do go over the edge, are we supposed to lock them up based on the assumption that they'll do something horrible? If that's the case we might as well lock up every woman based on the assumption that she's more than capable of engaging in acts of prostitution and selling her body.

      As far as I'm concerned the only possible solution is to keep these people from acquiring the weapons that allow them to inflict high numbers of casualties or to allow people carry sufficient protection to put one of these people down when they snap. Neither of these are particularly easy solutions (or even good) in my opinion. Perhaps someone else has a better solution of eliminating some root cause that I'm just not seeing or solving the problem in some way that's not a complete pain in the ass.

    6. Re:Haven't these people learned? by wisty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      31 people in 7 years? That's nothing. Germany has something like 1 intentional homicide per 100,000 people (about 1/4 of the USA murder rate, which is about half of the Zimbabwean murder rate ... not that the US needs gun control).

      Germany has 82 million people, so that's 820 homicides per year. I am guessing that the biggest offenders will be husbands, and the next biggest offenders will be wives.

      I say they should ban marriage - it's obviously a far bigger cause of violence than paintball games.

    7. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't confuse individual statistics with actual national numbers.

    8. Re:Haven't these people learned? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "But you'd think the Germans of all people would understand the risks of having an overly powerful government and a largely unarmed populace."

      That wasn't precisely the problem for Germany. The problem for the majority, lest we forget, is that they lost WWII. People don't fight that ferociously for an ideology they don't buy into.

      Given the enormous post-WWII effort by the Allies to condition Germans to be peaceful and docile by relentlessly reminding them of the Nazi period, we should not be surprised if their government makes every effort to wean them from violent play.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:Haven't these people learned? by hey! · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they are "creating a much bigger problem". What problem is that?

      It seems to me that they're passing laws just to make people feel like something is being done. It's not going to do any good, and it's going to do bad -- but just a tiny bit of bad. Certainly not a "much bigger problem" than somebody killing over a dozen people, but still a little bit bad.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, it wasn't a problem for the Germans. It was a problem for the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other undesirables who were largely unarmed when the government came to take them away. And this is all within living memory for many. How quickly some people forget...

    11. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Pinckney · · Score: 1

      This isn't about safety. No, these politicians know exactly what they're doing. They LOVE stuff like this happening. It just gives them one more way to subjugate the public.

      Exactly. "...the new rules, which the cabinet hopes to pass before a general election in September...".

    12. Re:Haven't these people learned? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much as I hate to see paintball and airsoft banned... I don't see how this is the government subjagating its population. More like being a stupid hysterical parent (of which I have seen dozens in response to paintball over the years).

      Just because this isn't effective, doesn't mean it isn't well intentioned. I'm sure the reason they're doing this is out of fear and outrage not some nefarious plot to supress the paintball revolution that was slowly fermenting in their borders.

      Stupid? Yes. Ignorant? Yes. Useless? Yes. Evil plot by the government? Not likely. The government is run by people just like you and me. Most normal people think paintball is a strange and violent game played by a bunch of sociopaths. Normal people also think the world is 7,000 years old. Think they're more likely to get their identiy stolen by buying something on amazon than by their brother in law. Think only children play video games. Think photoshop only runs on a mac.... etc etc etc...

      And who can really blame them in this instance. When else would you think it's normal for two people to be eating lunch and excitedly recounting how "He totally didn't see me coming. He was just sitting there and I snuck up behind him and shot him in the head. SPLAT!"

    13. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Being armed wouldn't have done any of them the slightest bit of good. They were outnumbered, out gunned, and up against a modern fighting force. At best, they could have taken a few SS with them, which would not save them, but might fuel Nazi propaganda.

      The best, and only, choice for those who the German government was rounding up and murdering was to flee. Leave occupied territory, go into hiding, or otherwise avoid capture and death. Going down fighting has never done anyone the slightest bit of good; you have to have a chance of winning to make the fight worth your life.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    14. Re:Haven't these people learned? by strack · · Score: 1

      dude. this *is* germany. there kinda big on scapegoats over there.

    15. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read up about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and then tell me fighting a losing battle never does any good. A few poorly armed Jews managed to hold off the the Wehrmacht for nearly a month. Sure, they lost in the end. But would it have been so easy for the Nazis to round up their victims if they faced such a battle every time they had tried?

      Remember that between 11 and 17 million people were killed in the Holocaust. Do you really believe that if every one of these people had a gun and used it against their oppressors, there would have been nearly as many murdered as there were? Look at the bigger picture.

    16. Re:Haven't these people learned? by genner · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they are "creating a much bigger problem". What problem is that?

      It seems to me that they're passing laws just to make people feel like something is being done. It's not going to do any good, and it's going to do bad -- but just a tiny bit of bad. Certainly not a "much bigger problem" than somebody killing over a dozen people, but still a little bit bad.

      Translation: Either I don't play paitnball or I don't live in Germany. Either way this doesn't affect me so I don't care.

    17. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know of it. I thought of it when I posted. My point stands.

      What you're overlooking is that the uprising was a total loss. The Jews were still killed, if not during the fighting, then afterwards. As a last stand on principle, it was a good thing, but from a practical perspective, it accomplished nothing.

      Would it have been so easy for the Nazis to round up their victims if they faced such a battle every time they had tried?

      Every time they tried? Wouldn't have happened.

      The Warsaw Ghetto was packed. The people there had nothing to lose. Hell, they barely had any guns, and still made a fight of it. Sheer numbers were their weapon.

      Most of the victims of the holocaust didn't have the numbers to make that stick. A few Jews in their homes with pistols would not have staved off the SS when they arrived. Especially not when their supposed "countrymen" were supporting the SS most of the time.

      Yes, if everyone who the SS tried to round up had been armed and fought they'd have had a harder time of it. Most likely, the SS would have simply responded with escalating force of their own. A few civilians might stave off a death squad consisting of green troops with SMGs, but they'd be hopelessly outmatched by even one armoured vehicle.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    18. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      Being armed wouldn't have done any of them the slightest bit of good. They were outnumbered, out gunned, and up against a modern fighting force.

      Like the insurgents in Iraq?

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    19. Re:Haven't these people learned? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I read an interesting quote from Herb Cohen (author of You Can Negotiate Anything, among others). I shall reproduce it here, for everyone's consumption.

      When people in our society believe they can't as individuals, make a difference, it's bad for all of us. "Powerless" people become apathetic and toss in the towel, which means others have to carry them on their backs, or they become hostile and try to tear down a system they can't understand and don't believe they can control. This attitude pervades our world. Some of its symptoms are declining productivity and senseless violence.

      Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme was one of those who became hostile. She attempted to gun down President Gerald Ford. After her arrest, she explained, "When people around you treat you like a child and pay no attention to the things you say, you have to do something!"

      The "something" Squeaky did was psychopathic and self-destructive. Her self-perception was miles off base. She didn't realize that she had other alternatives that were socially acceptable and legal. She didn't realize that a criminal act, regardless of its goal, is almost always an abuse of power.

      I think it is a problem in society of people not seeing things clearly. It is the same problem that we have with poverty: people living in the slums could pick themselves up, get an education, get out and greatly improve their lives, but it is hard for them to see the path to accomplishing that. Sometimes it is hard for them to believe they are even capable of it, so they stay stuck where they are. The two are often related: people killing each other because they don't understand how the world is, and people remaining in poverty because they don't understand how the world is.

      Life sucks, but you can change things. We need to get that message out to people. It will be a lot more effective than banning guns.

      --
      Qxe4
    20. Re:Haven't these people learned? by guruevi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a living memory only for a few old people, the young people and probably even all of the ruling class has heard about it but it's part of history rather not remembered just like the templar knights and the inquisition.

      My grandfather remembers it since he was arrested and sent to Bergen-Belsen, escaped, betrayed and sent to Buchenwald because he was in the resistance (sabotage) but he's 89 years old. He was also in the Belgian Congo and as he described it: shot blacks with spears off a bridge with a machine gun while being dropped by parachute to extract a "diddling" priest, the only white man in the village while there was an unusual amount of "mulatto" children. I had a friend that has lived it because of his religion (even went through the Death March) but he died last year.

      What I think is the main problem is 1) education: the gritty details are not being revealed to children because they believe they are too shocking while a lot of the media around it is romanticized or only described from one side (the winners side or what the soldiers had to go through to win) 2) shame: the survivors are to this day (with exceptions) ashamed to talk about it, the people or nations that went along with the nazi's (Germany, the Netherlands, the Catholic Church, Switzerland) are ashamed/afraid to admit wrongdoing. 3) Hitlers empire and the power he exerted over people is a wet dream for many politicians and rulers, if you analyze the political standpoints (without taking into account the blind hatred for minorities) you'll notice that politicians have been trying to do the same thing in a different way over and over again. What he promised was good jobs for everybody and to get rid of whomever seems to be the boogeyman for the current problems in exchange for their basic rights and freedoms all wrapped in a thin veil of hope for the children and pride in their own country.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    21. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Grym · · Score: 1

      Actually some aspects of the proposed laws do indeed get to the root of the problem. For instance tightening the restrictions on how registered guns are stored (the gun in this shooting was registered by the father but was not locked away -- had it been, this particular shooting certainly would have been much more difficult).

      Do you really think that a determined individual couldn't figure it out anyway? I mean, you do realize this is a human being, right? You're acting as if they had only put bear traps or rat poison all around the gun that this shooting wouldn't have happened. This kind of flawed thinking is what leads to ridiculous things like the U.S.'s No Fly List, which screens passengers on the basis of their name, as if a terrorist, willing to die for his cause wouldn't think to use a false name. It's absurd, and the only real effect is the harassment of honest citizens with real middle-eastern sounding names like: Teddy Kennedy, Robert Johnson, or John Lewis.

      But hey, if it makes people like you feel safer, I guess it's worth it, right?

      -Grym

    22. Re:Haven't these people learned? by rossifer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Germany has something like 1 intentional homicide per 100,000 people (about 1/4 of the USA murder rate, which is about half of the Zimbabwean murder rate ... not that the US needs gun control).

      Exclude drug-related murders from both Germany and the US. The remaining violence statistics are on par.

      The "War on (some) Drugs" is the most common proximal cause of murder in the US. Firearms are just the most popular tool for accomplishing a bit of drug fueled violence.

    23. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Who, you'll note, aren't using guns most of the time. Roadside bombs are their main weapon.

      Besides, I'm not sure the comparison stands. They're up against the US, a country that's notoriously unwilling to accept casualties, and that's bound by rules of engagement. When they break those rules, the troops that do so find their atrocities plastered all over the newspapers.

      The people targeted by Nazi Germany were up against a fighting force that had no moral limits on what they could do. Inflicting a few casualties with booby traps would not serve as a deterrent, not when the German military was suffering thousands of casualties on the front lines.

      The places where insurgency tactics worked in WWII were locations where the locals could weaken the military forces from the rear, while friendly troops attacked from the front. Iraq is different; the insurgency tactics are intended to make an occupation to expensive and politically nonviable to maintain.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    24. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, there are some out there who think that banning things like this (paintball, violent games, etc) makes the situation worse. Some seem to claim that such methods of "unwinding" help give people an outlet for aggression in a manner not harmful to others - thus reducing the potential for actual violent acts against others or themselves.

      Now... what do I think? I have no idea... I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist - and in my opinion, even those can only make general blanket statements that refer to certain groups (ie: depressed, always happy, or whatever) which still do not apply to everyone since the human creature, from person to person, is such a dynamic and different thing.

      Inotherwords... aint gotta clue... just bringing it up. Though from my experience interacting with other human beings and even slashdotters, it does seem sensible that it would apply to a decent number of people. Seems everyone has some method they use to deal with anger... and a non-harmful outlet is better than bottling it up till it explodes.

    25. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It wasn't a problem for Germans? You know, they also went after the disabled, mentally ill, homosexuals, communists, and anyone else they didn't like. The Nazis killed a lot of Germans.

    26. Re:Haven't these people learned? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Blending in with the civilian population is way more effective when the invading power isn't actively attempting to exterminate them all.

      It is true, though, that you can make quite a nuisance of yourself, particularly in cluttered areas, with inferior forces.

    27. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the rebels in the Warsaw Ghetto accomplished nothing simply because they lost, then neither did the Third Reich.

      Perhaps you will have the foresight and good fortune to flee a tyrannical government when you finally recognize your own to be one. Maybe to you the possibility of fighting back seems hopeless, and compliance--or even collaboration--is the only answer. I, for one, will not be rounded up so easily. I wish I could say the same for the rest of my countrymen, for my own sake if nothing else. But sadly many of them, like yourself, have forgotten or are willfully ignorant of the lessons of history. Against a single criminal or a tyrannical war machine, a gun can be the great equalizer.

      And for the record, the Nazis outnumbered the resistance fighters by a ratio of between 2:1 and 7:1. And the Nazis had tanks and an effectively unlimited supply of weapons at their disposal. You dishonor the fighters by trivializing their accomplishments.

    28. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, if everyone who the SS tried to round up had been armed and fought they'd have had a harder time of it. Most likely, the SS would have simply responded with escalating force of their own. A few civilians might stave off a death squad consisting of green troops with SMGs, but they'd be hopelessly outmatched by even one armoured vehicle.

      Standard guns, rifles and the like, in such a scenario are great for defense. That is, they might allow you the time to improvise more efficient weapons, based on the target. With some tools (preferably milling machines) and materials and some know how, it wouldn't be hard to build something like a bazooka or panzerfaust, in substantial numbers, and IEDs in great numbers. Even simple Molotov cocktails were a great asset in Warsaw.

      Look at Iraq. Sure, the Wehrmacht would have been infinitely more ruthless, but with the help of small arms, the indigenous people still find successful ways to harass and delay a real modern, mobile and information fueled, 21st century fighting machine.

    29. Re:Haven't these people learned? by wellingj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Prohibition/Blackmarket fueled Violence.
      Drugs have about as much to do with the violence as the guns do.
      Guns and drugs are inanimate objects that don't do anything with out a person's input.

    30. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the old republican statement? Oh yeah, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

    31. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zeez people?

      Vat do you mean zeez people?

    32. Re:Haven't these people learned? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Stupid? Yes. Ignorant? Yes. Useless? Yes. Evil plot by the government? Not likely. The government is run by people just like you and me.

      Any sufficiently advanced malevolence is indistinguishable from idiocy.

      As to governments being run by people (using the term loosely), well I can't fault you there... Are they just like you and me and Bob, however? There may have been a time when this was largely true, at least in the US, but I sincerely don't believe that is true today.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    33. Re:Haven't these people learned? by wellingj · · Score: 1

      A gun would aid in escape and evasion more than a pointy stick.

    34. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If the rebels in the Warsaw Ghetto accomplished nothing simply because they lost, then neither did the Third Reich.

      Yes. They didn't accomplish their goal of conquest.

      What did the Third Reich accomplish? It killed a great many people. It changed the geopolitical landscape of the day, though not for the better. It caused untold misery and suffering.

      These are accomplishments? Crimes, maybe. Accomplishments... not so much.

      Losing a fight is not an accomplishment. Fighting to the bitter end isn't either. Had the Warsaw Uprising resulted in the victims escaping death, or halted the advance of the German army, then I might call it an accomplishment.

      They had no choice in the matter, and I'd have done the same in their position. Doesn't change that they lost. And would have just as surely lost no matter how well armed they were; from a tactical standpoint, once the enemy has you surrounded and cut off from retreat or reinforcements, you are most likely screwed.

      Maybe to you the possibility of fighting back seems hopeless, and compliance--or even collaboration--is the only answer.

      -1 flamebait right there buddy. Oh, and there ought to be some Godwin variant that applies here; surely such a tasteless remark deserves it. Frankly, you ought to be ashamed for even making such a remark. I doubt you'd have the courage to say as much to anyone to their face.

      I never said resistance accomplishes nothing. I'm saying having guns ready for when the government comes for you accomplishes nothing, except your own demise in a shootout.

      Resistance is best accomplished through other means. If you must resist violently, explosives are a better choice than firearms, sabotage a better choice than a direct fight. Look at every successful uprising, and tell me I'm wrong.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    35. Re:Haven't these people learned? by hey! · · Score: 1

      No, translation: it's wrong to take away something people enjoy to make yourself feel better, but exaggerating that wrong isn't a sensible way of opposing it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    36. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Ugh, this is getting out of hand.

      Find where I said fighting an occupying force doesn't work. Oops, I didn't say that. Guess reading comprehension isn't working today.

      I said their best chance at survival lay in retreat. Which is 100% factually accurate. I also said having guns would not have saved them. Also true.

      And that small arms do not aid overly in insurgency. Not two posts up from yours I remarked that the best insurgent tactics involve sabotage, explosives and indirect warfare.

      Want to fight a tyrannical government? Build bombs. Hoarding guns gets you nowhere.

      Want to avoid being killed in a genocide? Flee.

      You'll note that neither option is exactly courageous. But they work. The European Jews who survived WWII largely did so by getting away from the Nazis, while the myriad resistance movements had the best success the further they strayed from direct warfare.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    37. Re:Haven't these people learned? by mog007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's about motivation. If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be vast amounts of profits for the drug dealers, because American corporations have made profiting from anything an art form. You get the beer companies and the cigarette companies fighting over legalized pot, and you stop the real assholes from murdering over it.

      Burger King doesn't get into block wars with McDonald's just because they opened up a new restaurant right across the street.

    38. Re:Haven't these people learned? by wellingj · · Score: 1

      The government is run by politicians.
      A true quote by a not so great but not so evil man:
      "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." -Nikita Khrushchev

    39. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your definition of "accomplishment" is bizarre and self-serving. If the only thing that makes anything worthwhile to you is immediate success in the endeavor, then we have no common ground on this matter.

      I stand behind everything I've said. The only thing you seem to be concerned with is short term well being. I find this attitude contemptible. If you would like to meet I will tell you the same thing in person.

    40. Re:Haven't these people learned? by wellingj · · Score: 1

      +1 The best thing I've heard today.

    41. Re:Haven't these people learned? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Why in the fuck is this insightful? Do you really think that the government should make anything some people find distasteful illegal? I find religion distasteful. Ban it! Oh, and skirts that don't cover the ankles. And Jews. Removing the freedom of people to do what they want as long as they aren't affecting other people is taking long strides to being a police state. The last major European/Eurasian police states happened in Russia, Germany, Italy... you get the drift.

    42. Re:Haven't these people learned? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as I'm concerned the only possible solution is to keep these people from acquiring the weapons that allow them to inflict high numbers of casualties or to allow people carry sufficient protection to put one of these people down when they snap.

      I used to think that gun control is the solution to violence. That banning guns would work. However, I'm starting to think though that guns are like P2P technology: the genie's out of the bottle, and no one's putting it back in. There are too many legitimate reasons to own a gun, and in the vast majority of countries, it will not be possible to remove all guns from circulation. As a result, I'm tending towards the same approach as P2P technology - use it, and use it as much as makes sense.

      The trick, of course, is what makes sense? My initial thought on this is that the probability to encounter a gun in public should be the same probability as being able to buy a gun. Yes, it means a lot of people will be carrying guns. It will require training, and it will require a major slap-down if anything happens to your gun, or if you do something with your gun that puts others in jeopardy (like leaving it unattended), you get slapped down hard. Fines if you were merely careless, jail time if something bad resulted from it (self-defense will only be valid if another gun was drawn). Only those who are willing to bear the risk will be out in public with them - good and bad people alike.

      Will it make going out an entirely different experience? Sure will. Restaurants will have a gun check, along with a coat check. Clubs will become a little less carefree. Secondary shootings will go up. Would it be worth it? I don't know. But one thing I'm learning is that everything is a tool, and you can't unmake tools, or unlearn them. We might as well embrace them.

      Finally, I think we're going to end up with an interesting social experiment: Germany is banning violence, but allowing boobs. The US is banning boobs, but allowing violence. We'll see how things evolve.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    43. Re:Haven't these people learned? by wellingj · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      Although I might actually eat at Burger King or McDondald's if they showed that much enthusiasm about earning my dollars. As it is now, they don't seem to really care if I'm happy with their product or not... but that's enough tangential thoughts on that... Speaking of tangential. Bravo on the sig.

    44. Re:Haven't these people learned? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Break down that number - are you including Stalin?

    45. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember Clinton's 1996 campaign slogan?

    46. Re:Haven't these people learned? by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As far as I'm concerned the only possible solution is to keep these people from acquiring the weapons that allow them to inflict high numbers of casualties or to allow people carry sufficient protection to put one of these people down when they snap

      By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

      "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident. Most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

      I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

      "Then there are the wolves and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

      "Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

      If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf.

      But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

      Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

      The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

      Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

      Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

    47. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single armed individual doesnt have a chance in resisting an oppressive government. Thats why gun control is aimed at the general public, because a few million gun owners are a much bigger force to be reckoned with.

      Sabotage and armed resistance arent mutually exclusive either.

    48. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1
    49. Re:Haven't these people learned? by wellingj · · Score: 1

      No. I was 14. But I googled and lol'd. Thanks.

    50. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Personally I like to think people should at least have the opportunity to try to fight for their lives. Maybe I'm wrong though, perhaps they should have all voluntarily turned themselves in. Hell, they probably should have just thrown themselves out of windows and off bridges, it was inevitable anyways right?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    51. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Your definition of "accomplishment" is bizarre and self-serving. If the only thing that makes anything worthwhile to you is immediate success in the endeavor, then we have no common ground on this matter.

      Not immediate success, no. To give a counterpoint, the resistance movements against Nazi Germany in countries like France obviously accomplished something, just not immediately.

      Put another way, it is worthwhile to stand up and fight a tyrannical government. Doing so may result in it's destruction or removal.

      It only remains worthwhile if the tactics you use to stand up against them have a hope of success. If you take up arms against an occupying power, know that you must do so in a manner that will lead to victory, even if it doesn't do so immediately. Fighting to the bitter end is poetic, but doesn't effect change.

      I stand behind everything I've said.

      You likened my response to the collaborators in WWII. If you "stand by that", then you are scum. Nothing more.

      Oh, and you fail at reading comprehension, since I'm pretty sure I was arguing that fighting a tyrant directly is stupid, not that fighting them at all is. Try and get through the whole post before commenting.

      The only thing you seem to be concerned with is short term well being.

      I am concerned with more than my own well being, as I believe my posts show. In this particular case, I'd be concerned for the well being of anyone who fought an oppressive government. I'd want to see them survive, and succeed.

      The tactics best used for fighting tyranny do not involved hoarding guns in your basement. That might have worked a century ago, but not today. The disparity of firepower between a civilian, however well armed, and a soldier, is too great.

      Look at every uprising that actually drove an occupying force away, or at least weakened them to the point where an external opponent could defeat them. The people, like yourself, who sat upon hoards of guns and fought in their homes, died early and did little. The people who would stick to guerrilla warfare, who'd bomb and sabotage the enemy, and who'd feed intelligence to external allies concerning the disposition of the tyrants armies, those are the resistance fighters who made a difference.

      I find this attitude contemptible. If you would like to meet I will tell you the same thing in person.

      I'll take you up on that. Or I would if I thought for a moment that some anonymous person on the net actually meant it.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    52. Re:Haven't these people learned? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Thanks

    53. Re:Haven't these people learned? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      We aren't disagreeing with each other. I posit that it's the War on Drugs and the resulting black-market profit that causes the violence. Not the drugs themselves.

    54. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Yes, they should try to fight when they're out of options. But ideally, if you're the target of a genocidal purge, your best bet isn't to fight in the first place. It's to flee.

      The lucky ones were the ones who got out of the way. The poor souls who didn't, or more often couldn't, had their options taken away until the only choice left was to fight and die.

      The lesson to be taken from this is not that they should have armed themselves. The same outcome would have happened if they did.

      If anything, the lesson we failed to learn in WWII is that when a tyrannical power is engaged in genocide, the other powers in the world need to intervene early and quickly. Waiting for them to finish is not a morally viable choice. The quote about how all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing comes to mind.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    55. Re:Haven't these people learned? by franki.macha · · Score: 1

      Mod parent insightful please :)

    56. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Most of the people who did escape did so through other means. Having a gun is a liability if you're trying to sneak over a border; it identifies you to the forces trying to keep you from escaping.

      The best thing to arm yourself with if you were a Jew trying to survive the holocaust would have been fake identification.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    57. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      No he's right, the 11 million+ figure is correct for the holocaust. People keep forgetting that while there were 6 million Jews killed, there were also at least 5 million other minorities killed as well. Possibly more, depending on whether you go by bodies and records, or people missing after the war ended.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    58. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you ignore is that except for the downtrodden Turkish minority in Germany, the nation as a whole (despite the ossies getting hosed) is ethnically homogeneous.

      In California, a hugely disproportionate number of murders are committed by and against illegal immigrants. The violent assault/murder numbers for Mexican nationals DWARF the inner city black-on-black violence.

      I suspect the German gov't has a non-report policy for non-German murders/assaults. I was in northern Deutschland in 86, a lot of shit was covered up even then. Being born in Germany doesn't mean squat, whether an Ami (me) or a Turk.

      Think about it, only in the dumbass USA does being born here mean you're a citizen. What kind of stupid loophole is that?

    59. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      It only remains worthwhile if the tactics you use to stand up against them have a hope of success.

      You're more likely to be successful with a gun than without one. If not, why would anyone want to have a gun in a fight?

      You likened my response to the collaborators in WWII. If you "stand by that", then you are scum. Nothing more.

      Yes, I did. And yes, I do. If you were given the choice between fighting a corrupt power in a battle you believed to be hopeless and collaborating, you have made it very clear what you would choose. And how you would justify it to yourself.

      The tactics best used for fighting tyranny do not involved hoarding guns in your basement. That might have worked a century ago, but not today. The disparity of firepower between a civilian, however well armed, and a soldier, is too great.

      Is it so great between a government and an armed populace that outnumbers the army by several orders of magnitude?

      Look at every uprising that actually drove an occupying force away, or at least weakened them to the point where an external opponent could defeat them. The people, like yourself, who sat upon hoards of guns and fought in their homes, died early and did little. The people who would stick to guerrilla warfare, who'd bomb and sabotage the enemy, and who'd feed intelligence to external allies concerning the disposition of the tyrants armies, those are the resistance fighters who made a difference.

      You're making the mistake of assuming the people "hoarding guns" and the people securing victories against tyranny through other means weren't one and the same. Look at the American Revolution, for example. At any rate, the people who evaluated whether to fight or surrender on the basis of whether they were certain they'd win the battle won very few battles.

      I'll take you up on that. Or I would if I thought for a moment that some anonymous person on the net actually meant it.

      You can send me email at guidodelconfuso@gmail.com if you're genuinely interested in continuing this discussion offline. I assure you that I am. If you're in New York by any chance, I'll meet you this weekend.

    60. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "good men" in that quote isn't just talking about other countries though, it applies on the individual level too.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    61. Re:Haven't these people learned? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I see the holocaust as Jews (and other so-called "undesireables" like gypsies, homosexuals, etc.) killed as a result of targeted extermination, not total deaths.

    62. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being armed wouldn't have done any of them the slightest bit of good. They were outnumbered, out gunned, and up against a modern fighting force.

      What you're overlooking is that the uprising was a total loss. The Jews were still killed, if not during the fighting, then afterwards. As a last stand on principle, it was a good thing, but from a practical perspective, it accomplished nothing.

      Maybe it's just me, but you've consistently argued, unequivocally, exactly what you now deny arguing. You flip flop more than a nervous tuna.

      MY point is: small arms are defensive tools. It is therefore in a genocidal, fascistic, or otherwise ill-intentioned government's best interest to remove as many of them as possible before they pound the drums of war--to do nothing other than make their goal(s) easier to accomplish.

      While I agree that fleeing may be (at least temporarily) the best option to survival, my point is, BEING ARMED may have allowed a great many more people to accomplish said feat. I'd also like to point out, that it was functionally almost impossible for large numbers of people to flee occupied areas during the war, thanks to the blitzkrieg. The only reliable way to get to safety, was to get out before zee germans got there--and what a feat it would have been.

      Also, modern research indicates blitzkrieg utilized motorized infantry, in light/unarmored vehicles (& paratroopers) to move in quickly, and the armor and motorized units were used largely to *support the infantry*. German commanders were apparently quite nervous to bring their tanks into urban centers (well justified, it's risky and logistically difficult), and instead used them for their power of encirclement, and to aid more traditional artillery batteries to do the heavy lifting.

    63. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      Stalin had nothing to do with Holocaust -- or any act of genocide during WWII. He was a major asshole, oppressive and often incompetent ruler, however he is at most responsible for 2 millions of politically motivated deaths. That's 2 millions too many, but nowhere at the scale of Hitler, and none of it had anything to do with genocide.

      Hitler, on the other hand, is solely responsible for WWII in Europe -- that's at least 70 millions dead, including at least 10 millions in outright genocide, 6 millions of them being Jewish.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    64. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 0

      You're more likely to be successful with a gun than without one. If not, why would anyone want to have a gun in a fight?

      Having a gun in a fight works if the fight is nearly fair. Two men with pistols each have a decent chance of winning a gunfight. We aren't talking about that here. We're talking about a civilian against soldiers, plural. Guns don't help there. Other weapons do.

      Yes, I did. And yes, I do. If you were given the choice between fighting a corrupt power in a battle you believed to be hopeless and collaborating, you have made it very clear what you would choose. And how you would justify it to yourself.

      Didn't I say I would fight? Several times. Again, you need to work on reading comprehension.

      I wouldn't fight a battle I believed hopeless unless all other methods of fighting it were exhausted. Given a choice, however, I'd fight it on my own terms instead of letting a tyrannical government choose where and how it would be fought. By "fight on my own terms" I'm talking about guerrilla warfare, sabotage, assassination, that sort of thing. Methods that have been shown to work historically against a larger force.

      Note that the people at Warsaw had no choice. In their position, I'd do what they did. But I'd also have been trying, up until that point, to get into a better position to fight.

      Is it so great between a government and an armed populace that outnumbers the army by several orders of magnitude?

      Yes. And has been for a century, at least.

      If you wish to dispute this, I invite you to show me an example of an armed population taking down a conquering or oppressive army (domestic or invading) through force of arms. Do so with a nation who has access to a modern military.

      Wait - you were going to say Vietnam vs. the US or Afghanistan vs. the USSR, right?

      Here's why I disagree with those. Examples like that involve an "armed population" that is being supplied by a modern military power to fuel a war by proxy. I guarantee you they would not have succeeded without outside aid.

      You're making the mistake of assuming the people "hoarding guns" and the people securing victories against tyranny through other means weren't one and the same. Look at the American Revolution, for example.

      I was wondering when the revolution would enter this discussion. I'll grant you that your argument held weight in 1775. Does it hold weight today? I do not believe so.

      Plus, don't overlook French involving in the revolution. This was their war by proxy. Without the French Navy, the colonists might not have won. So it wasn't just an armed populous.

      At any rate, the people who evaluated whether to fight or surrender on the basis of whether they were certain they'd win the battle won very few battles.

      Hmmm, I'll concede the point. Though I think I used the phrase "hope of success" instead of "certainty of success".

      Would the people evaluating a fight do so if they had a hope of winning? Yes. Even if it wasn't certain. When they have no hope, the best choice is either to fight through other methods, or flee. Surrender isn't a good choice for individuals up against governments.

      You can send me email at guidodelconfuso@gmail.com if you're genuinely interested in continuing this discussion offline. I assure you that I am. If you're in New York by any chance, I'll meet you this weekend.

      Wow, I didn't expect that. I can be reached at my slashdot user name plus the word "backupaccount" at gmail.com. I'm nowhere near New York though.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    65. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      It's a minor annoyance. However, the ABILITY of a government to create that minor annoyance by criminalizing a minor, harmless activity is a MAJOR problem, with far reaching negative consequences.

    66. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't see how this is the government subjagating its population. More like being a stupid hysterical parent

      "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
      -Franklin D. Roosevelt

    67. Re:Haven't these people learned? by TheSambassador · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the problem that should be focused on is that people kill each other... but that kids, for some odd reason, are going on killing sprees across the world.

      It's easy to point the finger at paintballing and video games, ban them, and say that you did something. Really, we do those things because we don't KNOW the exact causes of these outbursts, and that scares people.

      Maybe the first step in preventing these things is to focus more on bullying in school, and attempting to reach out to kids who might be outsiders. How that can be accomplished... I don't know, but these seem to be calculated acts of rage on the part of the killer, and we should be focusing on where that rage is stemming from rather than fumbling at misguided "solutions."

    68. Re:Haven't these people learned? by number11 · · Score: 1

      A single armed individual doesnt have a chance in resisting an oppressive government. Thats why gun control is aimed at the general public, because a few million gun owners are a much bigger force to be reckoned with.

      So where were all those gun owners when George Bush was gutting the Constitution? Didn't hear much of a peep out of them.

      The trouble is, usually a large part of the population (including gun owners) supports the oppressive government. There were a lot of Nazis in Germany, there were a lot of Communists in Russia. There's lots of reasons people support their government, some good and some bad. Maybe it's patriotism ("he's the President, so laws don't apply to him"). Or government propaganda ("we have enemies, and people who don't support the government are aiding them"). Or opportunism. Maybe some of the people are just bigots who don't like Jews, or Muslims, or communists, or perverts, or whoever the scapegoat is today. Maybe you'll fight the oppression, but your neighbor will turn you in, if he doesn't shoot you first.

      The only time you get a unified population is when the oppressive government is one put in place by foreign invaders who are occupying. That draws the lines pretty clearly, population on one side, foreigners and their puppets on the other. But even there, if they're good at it (the Brits were very good, in their day, the US not so much), they can play you off against each other. It won't work forever, but it may well work for generations.

      A nation of gun owners? Afghanistan is a nation of gun owners. I wouldn't say it's made them any freer, but they do have a pretty good record against foreign invaders.

    69. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you're not getting here, but I'll take a stab at it.

      Here are my points, separated for your convenience.

      1) If you are the target of a genocide, flee. You can't win by fighting. Genocide doesn't happen just anywhere, you need a the support the majority to pull it off. If the people being killed do not have the support of their countrymen, they haven't a prayer of victory through arms.

      2) If you are resisting an occupying force, fight, but indirectly. Standing your ground hasn't worked in a long time. You will lose a "fair" fight, so fight dirty instead.

      Being armed, which seems to be your thing, helps in neither case. In the former case, you can't win by fighting, and in the latter case, your best bet isn't arming in advance, for a long list of reasons I've already gone over.

      Per the first point I keep seeing people state that the Jews could have fought the SS and escaped. They couldn't. Or more accurately, any situation in which they could escape, they could better do so without fighting. Remember that the methods they had which worked best depending on keeping a low profile and either hiding or crossing a border. I'm basing this on what the survivors did, since the people who didn't survive obviously weren't as lucky.

      Per the second point, my statement is based on my knowledge of history. The resistance movements that eventually found themselves free of occupation largely did so by fighting dirty and receiving help from outside (and helping the allies in turn, through espionage).

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    70. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      I concede that. But I'll also point out that the "good men" who were making a difference were generally doing so by methods like hiding the Jews, or getting them across borders. We generally don't think of those methods as resistance, since they didn't bring the war any closer to the end, but it's undeniably the best way to save lives in their position.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    71. Re:Haven't these people learned? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there some sort of non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany? Why did Hitler turn on Russia?

      Good thing the Yanks did the bomb or it would have been much worse.

    72. Re:Haven't these people learned? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Going down fighting has never done anyone the slightest bit of good; you have to have a chance of winning to make the fight worth your life.

      Tell that to Ghandi.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    73. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand what you mean by "war by proxy", or more relevantly, what that has to do with the discussion. It doesn't really matter how these civilians--and in the examples you conveniently provide, the combatants were by and large civilians--obtained their guns. The point is that they had them, and when it came time to use them, they did. And it may not have been armed populaces alone that managed to defeat their oppressors in these cases, but so what? They certainly played a critical role in these victories, in that if the general populace had been completely disarmed there would hardly have been any opposition at all.

      Is it so great between a government and an armed populace that outnumbers the army by several orders of magnitude?

      Yes. And has been for a century, at least.

      Sorry, but the numbers just don't agree with you. In the Warsaw Ghetto, it took 2000 German soldiers equipped with rifles and tanks nearly a month to suppress a few hundred Jewish rebels. If it had been a few million rebels instead of a few hundred, it would have taken far more manpower than the German army was able to commit to quash that resistance, even assuming the Warsaw uprising was particularly successful. Consider that at least 11 million people were ultimately executed by the Nazis. Do you seriously believe that had these 11 million people been armed and prepared to fight, the death toll would not have been less?

      While I disagree with your arguments, I can see you have considered them and are capable of articulating them lucidly--hence my willingness to meet in person (although I will admit that my enthusiasm for long distance travel to do so is marginal). However, your statement "I wouldn't fight a battle I believed hopeless unless all other methods of fighting it were exhausted" does strike me as exactly the sort of sentiment that collaborationist use to justify their cowardice to themselves, right before "I can do more good alive than dead". Nobody goes into a battle believing it to be hopeless. And those who truly believe it to be hopeless don't go into battle--especially not when collaboration is still an option.

      I'm not necessarily saying you believe that. It's possible I may be misinterpreting what you're saying. But that is my objection to your attitude when it comes to whether or not to bother resisting tyranny at the individual level.

    74. Re:Haven't these people learned? by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1

      So what we *really* need is right-of-the-people-to-own-explosives?

      Now, that might be interesting.

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    75. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Going down fighting has never done anyone the slightest bit of good; you have to have a chance of winning to make the fight worth your life.

      Tell that to Ghandi.

      Ok, I was laughing really hard there for a second. But I'm done now.

      Gandhi? Are you out of your mind.

      Gandhi didn't fight. That was the whole point of what he did - non-violent resistance. The notion of Gandhi "going down fighting" is hilariously ignorant of history. He'd have gone down peacefully, and he'd have won by doing so. He did, really, in the end, though not til after he'd won.

      His methods worked in no small part because he was up against an opponent who fancied themselves as "civilized". The Brits couldn't kill him, or cart him off to a concentration camp. Fighting him, when he wouldn't fight back, only strengthened his movement in the eyes of the public.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    76. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to have a weapon just in case racial conscious fascist who want to send me to a work camp or class conscious communist who want to send me to a reeducation camp come back.

      When rational arguments fails, and the other side feel justified to use violence, it is always good to have as last option the recourse to lead loaded arguments...

    77. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I'm certainly not excusing any of the people who do these things, but one thing they all seem to have in common is that they have been treated badly by other people in society. The problem almost seems to be more of a side effect of modern society. Those "unstable" people may always have existed amongst us, then combine that with the hostilities of the modern world and you have a disaster waiting to happen. These types of shooting seems to be on the rise compared to family shootings, which they seem a logical extension from in the large, increasingly disconnected world.

      Rather than just looking out for these individuals, we also need to look at our entire society, since the problems there affect more than just this problem.

    78. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having a gun in a fight works if the fight is nearly fair. Two men with pistols each have a decent chance of winning a gunfight. We aren't talking about that here. We're talking about a civilian against soldiers, plural. Guns don't help there. Other weapons do.

      If every group of soldiers suffered just one serious casualty for every group of jews or whatever group they were assigned to bring in, morale would plummet to the point of mutiny pretty quickly. Even if soldiers ended up slaughtering everyone in each group, there would still be a pretty good chance of them taking one casualty in the process.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    79. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Stalin killed more people than Hitler in terms of outright genocide. He let 10 million Ukrainians starve to death in the 30s over a policy dispute, and that's barely scratching the surface for him. The only person who possibly killed even more than Stalin was Mao.

    80. Re:Haven't these people learned? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that the government should make anything some people find distasteful illegal?

      I would love to make embarassingly bad reading comprehension illegal but alas...

      No the government shouldn't make things people find simply distasteful illegal. I didn't suggest that Paintball should be illegal. I'm simply stating that the parent's position that banning paintball was part of a nefarious evil ploy to strip us of our paintball guns was just silly.

      People make decisions based on the information they have available to them. Most people aren't well aquainted with paintball. Their exposure is often out of context and ill informed.

      How ill informed? Because it's a 'noble' thing to send one's son off to join the military. But paintball is viewed as 'training killers'. Ironic isn't it? The government spends trillions of dollars every year training our youth to kill, but then acts outraged when vaguely military training is being sold. I can think of 3 shooting rampages in which the shooter had military training off the top of my head. But we don't ban the military. Why? Because most people know someone in the military. Most people are friends with someone who serves in the military. Most people are relatively well informed about the effects of the military on their friends and family. They've seen first hand what it's like. Paintball doesn't have that. So it's only natural that people can get confused and erroneous impressions from their minimal exposure (and often very very bad spokespeople with poor tact).

      It's the duty of society to prohibit activities which are damaging to society: murder, theft, rape and assault. We take away freedoms which we have deemed harmful to others. It's an arbitrary line at which we decide the threat to public safety is less than the threat to society. If paintball *did* actually cause people to go on shooting rampages... and you didn't know anyone who played. Then the cost to society is ~0 and the benefit is great. With that misinformation then banning it is the proper thing to do.

      If the Jews had been eating babies, stealing everyone's money and ploting the down fall of civilization then it would have been a prudent course of action to pass laws to protect yourself.

      Education is the only defense we have against ignorance. Ignorance is what drives unfounded fears. Education is the solution. If the paintball industry wants to survive then they need to demonstrate to the government that any fear related to their sport is unwarranted. Instead of assuming the politicians are a bunch of nazis who want to enslave the masses you need to view them like you would a family member who simply is ill-informed. Take them to a game. Teach them to play. Pull back the veil of secrecy and trust them to see for themselves what it is all about. If you go into it assuming this is some grand conspiracy to take away your guns, then you'll just come across as a paranoid paramilitary looking to overthrow the government--precisely the sort of stereotype that they're used to seeing being associated with war games. They're normal people with legitimate fears based on inaccurate knowledge.

    81. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because you must think that it's better to perish in a gas chamber after months of humiliating existence in a concentration camp then to die fighting next to your comrades.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    82. Re:Haven't these people learned? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      The notion of Gandhi "going down fighting" is hilariously ignorant of history.

      If you don't think civil disobedience isn't a fight than you've obviously never been involved. Gandhi most certainly faced actions by the hands of the British that could have killed him and he had no way of knowing that he wouldn't be killed. He risked it all just as much as anyone else involved with a fight. You only have the virtue of seeing it in hind sight.

      But if you want to be mocking about it, that's fine. But to me that's as good as spitting on the hundreds who were murdered in a civil disobedience movement against a "civilized" enemy.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    83. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1
    84. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they just want to show they are doing something. Can you imagine how the relatives of the people shot would react when the government would say that 4.5 people per year was an acceptable loss?

    85. Re:Haven't these people learned? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Also that's not the way you prevent teenage alienation and male depression. For some gamers, paintball is going to be the only physical sport and the only (real-life) social interaction they're ever going to have/enjoy with one and other. It would seem the German government should try to foster and sponsor such activities -- not try to ban them.

    86. Re:Haven't these people learned? by logicnazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, if everyone the SS tried to round up had been armed and aware losing meant a near sureity of death for them and theirs they would have taken over the country. Hell, even if only 10% had been ready and willing to die for the cause they would have won, guns or no guns.

      History is filled with examples of asymetric warfare where armed fanatics bested or held their own against huge numerical and military advantages. The vast majority of soldiers in every regular army aren't killers nor eager to die. They mostly just go with the flow and try not to get shot. Except for a small number of elites they are useless without their command structure and the psychological comfort of group membership.

      Fanatics or people with their back to the wall don't suffer the same disadvantages. When failure is as good as death for you and yours you'll fight back even in isolation. Military hardware is great for defeating armies but most of it is useless against a scattered population of individual killers. That's why a small number of insurgents in Iraq can keep hundreds of thousands of our troops occupied and even then most insurgents aren't true fanatics or up against a wall. Even a thousand men ready to kill and die to stop you is a grave threat even if they are armed with sticks.

      But of course the upshot of this is that I agree with your conclusion. Guns wouldn't have made a difference, only knowledge would have. Even without guns the holocaust would have been a fraction of the size had the victims really believed they were to be sent to their death. On the other hand without that belief guns would be confiscated before anyone was willing to use them.

      --------

      Let me put it this way. No matter how racist and unfair you think the police where you live are how likely are you to shot back if they come and demand your guns under a new law? Would you have fired back to stop them from taking you to a japanese internment camp in WWII?

      If your answer is no why would you think it would have gone down and differently during the holocaust? Maybe during less organized genocides but not the holocaust.

      --

      If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    87. Re:Haven't these people learned? by harmonica · · Score: 1

      Genocide doesn't happen just anywhere, you need a the support the majority to pull it off. If the people being killed do not have the support of their countrymen, they haven't a prayer of victory through arms.

      I generally agree with your other statements, but I don't think this part I quoted is true. The Nazis were rather sneaky about what exactly they were doing in concentration camps, why they were arresting certain people and what they were doing to them. A lot of Germans really didn't know what was going on there. 65 years later, the collective knowledge of the events is much, much larger.

      So unless "support of the majority" means something different from being aware of an issue and being okay with it, genocide can happen without it.

    88. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah Animals is my favorite Pink Floyd album too. Honestly dude wtf.

    89. Re:Haven't these people learned? by kinocho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, usually I don't get into guns discussions, but just for your information, in my country you have to have your guns locked, dismantled and inside a safe box.

      Thing is, the safebox is too complicated for my father to go throuhg, so, so you know who was the one in charge of opening it most of the times? Yeah, his 7 years old son, that was me, by the way.

      And although I admit to being a full sociopath, I am not a crazy or assassin or anything.

    90. Re:Haven't these people learned? by logicnazi · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously believe that had these 11 million people been armed and prepared to fight, the death toll would not have been less?

      Yes, that's true but it also doesn't show that more guns would have prevented deaths.

      Only the limiting factor really matters and in this case it wasn't guns but willingness to fight. Indeed, I submit the limiting factor is virtually always willingness to fight save a few numerically small last stands (Masada, Thermopylae, etc..). If you have the will you can kill your enemies with your bare hands and steal their guns.

      The jews and other holocaust victims didn't fight back for the same reason Japanese American's didn't fight when we put them in internment camps. They didn't believe they would be killed. Without that knowledge they could have all had piles of firearms in their basement and it wouldn't have made a difference (except perhaps provoking a confiscation).

      --

      If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    91. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't see how this is the government subjugating its population."

      The former poster used the word "subjugate", which you're using as a pejorative in order to pull credibility from his argument.
      He never said a thing about "evil plots" or "conspiracies"; he is simply showing his anger at this absurd proposal for a law.

      You're attacking his credibility, yet at the same time don't believe in the merit of the proposed law.
      This is actually the most dangerous frame of mind possible.

      It doesn't MATTER whether they are "evil". It doesn't MATTER whether they have a "nefarious plot". It doesn't MATTER whether or not its a "conspiracy".

      If a mentally retarded person, with the mind of an infant, finds a gun, and then happily starts shooting everyone he sees, thinking its a game, should this have any deference with regards to your judgment as to whether or not this person must be "shot back at"? If the gunmen was instead "evil", the choice is obvious; kill the bastard. But if the gunman is a child or otherwise not able to comprehend what he is doing, should this change the fact that one must DEFEND oneself and/or take action against the offender?

      To simply say, "It's OK because they are stupid", is a very poor dialectical construct to have, when operating under the assertion, that "they" are indeed WRONG and unjustified in "their" actions.

      'They are doing "X" to me, I don't like it, and I think its unjustified, but I won't resist it because I'm sure they are doing it because they are stupid or have good intentions.'

      Everybody has "good" intentions. Hitler had "good" intentions. Do you think Hitler woke up in the morning thinking like "Dr. Evil", "Ha ha ha ha, it feels SOOO GGOOOOOOOOOD to be EVIL!"?
      He didn't THINK he was evil. I doubt most serial killers think they are "evil". They just think they are doing what is "right" and if not what's "right", then what "feels good".
      Most people do what they THINK is "right" or "feels good". I'm sure the 0.0001% who ACTUALLY think they are "evil" don't REALLY believe in "evil" in the first place.

      The poster was making a slight exaggeration because he was angry at the thought of the law, and you chose to attack his credibility, which implies that you are apathetic to the governments actions simply because of their INTENTIONS.
      This frame of mind is FAR more dangerous then the most "wild" "conspiracy theory" imputations.
      Just an FYI.

       

    92. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand what you mean by "war by proxy", or more relevantly, what that has to do with the discussion. It doesn't really matter how these civilians--and in the examples you conveniently provide, the combatants were by and large civilians--obtained their guns. The point is that they had them, and when it came time to use them, they did. And it may not have been armed populaces alone that managed to defeat their oppressors in these cases, but so what? They certainly played a critical role in these victories, in that if the general populace had been completely disarmed there would hardly have been any opposition at all.

      Wikipedia is your friend:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

      Short version:
      In Afghanistan, when they were fighting the Soviets, the US supplied them with missiles, guns, training and logistical support, as part of the cold war efforts. The rest of the Mujahadeen's weapons came from the Soviets themselves, in the form of captured weapons.

      Afghanistan would not have had a prayer of fending off the Soviet army on their own. Nor would Vietnam have had a hope against the US by themselves. Which is exactly my point. What I'm asking you for is an example where this didn't happen. What we're arguing here, lest we lose sight of it, is whether an armed population can fend off an oppressor. If the oppressor's enemies weigh in, even if they do so for the wrong reasons, is it really an uprising anymore? Or is it just another proxy war?

      Sorry, but the numbers just don't agree with you. In the Warsaw Ghetto, it took 2000 German soldiers equipped with rifles and tanks nearly a month to suppress a few hundred Jewish rebels. If it had been a few million rebels instead of a few hundred, it would have taken far more manpower than the German army was able to commit to quash that resistance, even assuming the Warsaw uprising was particularly successful.

      Well, first off, those rebels were up against a wall. People always fight hardest when they have nothing to lose.

      Second, they were fighting on their home ground. Also a benefit. The Ghetto was theirs by that point, had been for some time.

      Since neither of those situations was repeated elsewhere in German occupied Europe, I don't see it as a valid point of comparison. Let's say there were a million armed men fighting to avoid the camps. Spread out over many nations, threatened by the people who would turn them in - they'd be dead. Not all at once, but part of what the SS did well was dividing and isolating their victims.

      Granted, they'd take some SS with them, which would be worthwhile. But fleeing the Nazis was always their best bet.

      Consider that at least 11 million people were ultimately executed by the Nazis. Do you seriously believe that had these 11 million people been armed and prepared to fight, the death toll would not have been less?

      We're arguing here what might have been, which is always a tricky business. But essentially, yes. I do not think their armament or lack thereof would seriously affect the outcome.

      It takes more than just a gun to make a soldier. Many of those 11 million were women, children, elderly. Hell, quite a few were disabled; the Germans killed anyone "less than whole". And they weren't all Jews; 5 million belonged to many different groups, all seen by the Nazis as "subhuman", but otherwise having nothing in common. It's hard to arm and coordinate such a disparate group.

      Had they been armed, but uncoordinated, I'll tell you what I think would have happened. Most wouldn't fight. The ones who would fight, would do so poorly, and die for it. Some people who did survive the holocaust by fleeing occupied territory would have stayed instead, and died in the process. The SS would isolate them, would pay people to rat them out, and finally would kill them.

      Would a few more survive by war

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    93. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just because this isn't effective, doesn't mean it isn't well intentioned.

      You're right. We should ignore the consequences of all things that are well intentioned. Like cleansing a race, banning books with evil contents...

      "The government is run by people just like you and me.

      Yeah, that's the point. Since it's run be people just like you and me, it's probably not the best idea to hand over so much power to them. There's always some douchebag politician who thinks they know better than you. Actually, that's pretty much every politician. You should be wary of concentrating much power into your governing body: doing so may satisfy your sense of justice today, but come back to bite your ass tomorrow.

    94. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      Come on, look at Kristalnacht. Or the murder of countless Jews openly, either by mob or by SS. They started building the camps because it was taking too long, not to hide what they were up to.

      What you're talking about isn't ignorance, it's denial. Big difference.

      Now, in the occupied nations, I'll grant your point. But those are also the places where the population resisted the SS, typically by hiding the Jews, helping them flee, or just being silent when the SS came knocking. In places where antisemitism was already rampant, the SS had all the local support they needed.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    95. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      but it's undeniably the best way to save lives...

      I'll deny it. The best way to save lives would have been for good men to not let it even take root and begin.

      ...in their position.

      Ah, I see. Now we are setting up a situation where the good men are only capable of acting after a certain point in time? That's pretty damn unfair and misses the entire point of the quotation. Sure good men did help out once the shit got thick however (following the logic of the quotation), the shit only got thick because good men initially did nothing.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    96. Re:Haven't these people learned? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      This isn't about safety. No, these politicians know exactly what they're doing. They LOVE stuff like this happening. It just gives them one more way to subjugate the public. But you'd think the Germans of all people would understand the risks of having an overly powerful government and a largely unarmed populace.

      From the sounds of it, "subjugating the public" is having a positive effect on the number of murders and shootings!

    97. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      It's funny how few people remember that Col. Grossman was Emperor Palpatine to Jack Thompson's Darth Vader.

    98. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about "fighting" in the metaphorical sense in the post you quoted originally.

      I was talking about literal, blood and guts, fighting. "Going down fighting" in this context means battling to the bitter end.

      And in that sense, no, Gandhi didn't fight. Nor did his followers. That's how they won, by taking the moral high ground and sticking to their principles.

      Since the original discussion was Nazi Germany however, you bringing up Gandhi is pretty pointless. His methods would have earned him a quick death there.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    99. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it wasn't a problem for the Germans. It was a problem for the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other undesirables who were largely unarmed when the government came to take them away. And this is all within living memory for many. How quickly some people forget...

      Well, I would say that the Jews and Gypsies and homosexuals and other undesirables in Germany were actually Germans.
      Though they killed a huge amount of Poles and Ukranians, French etc., too.

    100. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      I'll deny it. The best way to save lives would have been for good men to not let it even take root and begin.

      True, but who could have done what earlier?

      The German people could have rejected Hitler. They didn't.

      The Allies could have intervened earlier. Too early and it'd probably have made things worse, but the US could have gone in in '39. They didn't.

      Who exactly do you think should have acted to prevent the evil from taking root, and when?

      By the time period we're talking about, resisting the SS by helping their targets escape really is just about the best thing the people could have done.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    101. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      If every group of soldiers suffered just one serious casualty for every group of jews or whatever group they were assigned to bring in, morale would plummet to the point of mutiny pretty quickly.

      Or, they'd get pissed off enough to fight harder. These are soldiers were talking about here, and in wartime to boot.

      How bad did it have to get up at the front lines before morale broke? I'd say it was a hell of a lot worse than one casualty for each engagement.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    102. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Entropy98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a gross oversimplification. Its sounds like something you would hear in an elementary school. You don't actually believe that bullshit do you? If you do, well, I'd say you're the sheep.

      The world is not black and white, people are not either good or evil. This isn't a fairy tale, the world isn't that simple. That sounds good, feels good bullshit is part of the problem. It perpetuates the we are good, they are bad myth.

      The world is a dangerous place, "sheepdog" security theater isn't going to save them, though it may get some politicians elected and sell some product. The world is full of different shades of gray. People need to learn how to think for themselves, not hide behind some fucking "sheepdog".

    103. Re:Haven't these people learned? by PietjeJantje · · Score: 1

      shame: the survivors are to this day (with exceptions) ashamed to talk about it, the people or nations that went along with the nazi's (Germany, the Netherlands, the Catholic Church, Switzerland) are ashamed/afraid to admit wrongdoing

      Switzerland and the Netherlands nazi countries? Jesus man, get your facts straight. This is totally embarrassing.

    104. Re:Haven't these people learned? by stonewallred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fighting for your life and the lives of your family is the important part. If every jew, gypsy,homosexual and other fodder for the nazis' death camps had fought to their dying breath before being taken off to be exterminated, that things may have been different. Look at the French Resistance, the current islamic terrorists, the IRA, and then try to extend your mind into the realms of numbers. How many jews, how many gypsies? How many armed and ready to die in the street, taking at least one government stooge down with them does it take to stop BS? If every time a local USA police department staged a predawn raid, they had to be concerned with not only the people in the house, but their neighbors also, you would see a remarkable decrease in the use of the heavily armed no knock intrusion. The threat of deadly response is a big speed bump for oppressive governments, hence the heavy use of secret police, and the indoctrination of the youth in every oppressive government.And the most important thing you forgot is the idea that it is better to die on your feet, as a free man, than live on your knees as a slave.

    105. Re:Haven't these people learned? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      You deny that there are actually "evil" people in the world? I'm not referring to religious beliefs.

      people are not either good or evil So, how do you categorize the mass shoot-ups (thankfully there haven't been any lately)? Are these just societal aberrations that can be fixed via social engineering?

      In a way I do agree with you, but there's that imminent danger thing. What don't you like about sheepdogs? Are they intimidating to you?

    106. Re:Haven't these people learned? by RsG · · Score: 1

      He did say "went along with" the Nazis, which is a bit different.

      Switzerland still doesn't want to admit they did business banking for the Nazis, so I can see where he got them from. The Catholics turned a blind eye to the holocaust, so they make sense. I'm not sure where he got the Netherlands though.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    107. Re:Haven't these people learned? by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      As a point, the SS rounding up Jews were not the same SS fighting on the lines. The Jew rounding up SS were for the most part freakazoids who were sadistic pervs who were not actual military types. the front line SS would take horrible casualties and keep fighting with decent morale. The other SS would probably shit themselves if they lost one per round up, especially if it was to the "subhumans" who were killing them. Wermacht and Waffen to distinguish them(sp?)

    108. Re:Haven't these people learned? by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      This is /. Logic and facts will get you nowhere. Learn to use FUD, insults, questionable analogies, lies and distortions, and you too can be a master of ./-fu.

    109. Re:Haven't these people learned? by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Dead on for the "feels good" idea about serial killers and anti-social personality disorders. Their feeling good is roughly analogous to normal peoples' moral compass. Normal people do things because it is the "right thing to do". So do anti-socials, but their rightness is determined by the way it makes them feel, not by any morality. BTW, the reason most serial killers and anti-socials get caught is because they can not suppress their desires, a trait that morality teaches as a matter of course.

    110. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Kirth+Gersen · · Score: 1

      pipinguy:

      Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. ... Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

      Gosh, the sheepdog looks an *awful lot* like the wolf these days. And sometimes you see him chatting to the wolf, and they both look at you and laugh. Can't quite make out what they're saying, though. Can't quite.

    111. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      The point (your point really, you brought up the quote in the first place...) is that Hitler only got away with what he did because nobody stopped him. The quote does not suggest who could have stopped him, besides "good men".

      Now, realistically the logical answer is that the German people should have rejected Hitler's fanaticism and racism instead of going along with it. In my humble opinion they were among the first "good men" who did nothing. First and foremost citizens of a country should be concerned with the actions of their own government. Any answer more specific than that is just delving into tactics and really isn't relevant at all to the discussion at hand.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    112. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a mentally retarded person, with the mind of an infant, finds a gun, and then happily starts shooting everyone he sees, thinking its a game, should this have any deference with regards to your judgment as to whether or not this person must be "shot back at"? If the gunmen was instead "evil", the choice is obvious; kill the bastard. But if the gunman is a child or otherwise not able to comprehend what he is doing, should this change the fact that one must DEFEND oneself and/or take action against the offender?

      If there is an immediate threat on your life that you have no other way of defusing, shooting back is defensible. But this is not the case. The German govt isn't killing anybody, they are banning an entertaining hobby, which is really really really annoying and stupid, but no-one is going to die from it.

      If a kid pees in the pool, you take him out and explain that he's not supposed to do that, and if he looks genuinely sorry, you let him in again. If a grown-up pees in the pool on purpose, you take them out, fine them and ban them for life. In neither case do you shoot anyone.

    113. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it wasn't a problem for some Germans. It was a problem for the German Jews, German homosexuals, German communists and any other Germans the Nazi's didn't like who were largely unarmed when the government came to take them away.

    114. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Njovich · · Score: 1

      Exclude drug-related murders from both Germany and the US. The remaining violence statistics are on par.

      Do you have any citation for that? Or is that just truth from your balls?

    115. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Entropy98 · · Score: 1

      You deny that there are actually "evil" people in the world? I'm not referring to religious beliefs.

      Define "evil people". The whole idea of "evil" is subjective.

      people are not either good or evil

      I was saying that it is not an either or. It's not:

      Person 1: Good
      Person 2: Evil
      Person 3: Good
      Person 4: Good

      It's more like:

      Person 1: Some good, some bad.
      Person 2: Some good, some bad.
      etc, etc

      Sure some people maybe more good or more bad than others. But no one is pure good, or pure evil.

      The passage you quoted simplistically refers to society as being composed of the good sheep, the good protectors, and the evil. While you might be able to convince people of this with the normal bogeymen such as mass murders, when you take this view with the laws that law enforcement more commonly enforces, and the ones people more commonly go to jail for, you can no longer categorize people with nice convenient labels.

      So, how do you categorize the mass shoot-ups (thankfully there haven't been any lately)? Are these just societal aberrations that can be fixed via social engineering?

      Yeah, mass shootings are a societal aberration. There are 300 million people in the US. That is a lot of people. It is a statistical inevitability that
      someone is going to commit a mass shooting (or bombing, or stabbing, or poisoning, or whatever) now and then, for whatever reason. That is life.

      You ask if this can be fixed with social engineering. I would think that this would be self evident, but no of course it can't. That's like asking if murder can be stopped. The idea of putting an end to mass murderers is so laughable as to barely warrant discussion. Short of mind reading, genetically engineering some sort of "super human", or some other ridiculous future technology you can't stop mass killings or any other "evil" 100%. Humans are just too varied and unpredictable.

      In a way I do agree with you, but there's that imminent danger thing.

      What imminent danger thing?

      What don't you like about sheepdogs? Are they intimidating to you?

      Who said I don't like sheepdogs? Are they intimidating? Well that depends on the situation. You ever break a law? Ever done anything someone might consider evil?

    116. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auch ! The Netherlands went along with the nazi's ?
      You seem ignoranct about the fact that the Germans overran the country militairy.
      The Germans bombed the citycenter of Rotterdam to smithereens and threathened Utrecht to follow on the next day and other cities after that.
      How is that 'going along with the Germans' I ask myself.
      And yes, I am Dutch and my grandfather was in the resistance.

    117. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because this isn't effective, doesn't mean it isn't well intentioned.

      Wel... I very much question their intentions, especially as germany has an army, designed to kill people. I see a double standard here and any politician with an IQ >50 should see it too.

    118. Re:Haven't these people learned? by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could find dirty hands in most countries, including the USA. I think he mixed up Austria and the neutral Switzerland. Italy or Japan with the Netherlands? The Dutch went along with the Nazis like Kuwait went along with the Iraq invasion, Rotterdam was bombed flat, and 5 years of deadly oppression followed until liberation.

    119. Re:Haven't these people learned? by religious+freak · · Score: 3, Funny

      STOP. You're making too much sense! I just wish a politician would have the balls to actually change things. This war on drugs is such nonsense. If I had to choose between pot, cigarettes and alcohol to have legal, I'd choose pot. It's one of the most benign drugs anywhere.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    120. Re:Haven't these people learned? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Haven't these people learned that they are just going to cause a much bigger problem then they are trying to solve?

      These are politicians, those in Germany are unlikely to behave very differently from those elsewhere in the world.

      It saddens me to see how they are going after everything but the cause of it.

      Probably because doing this would not be simple and/or be mutually exclusive with some policy or other.

      Banning paintballing isn't going to solve a thing, stuff like this is still going to happen. Next thing you know they are going to try and ban all FPS games over there.

      Or "laser tag" type games, even water pistols.

      Get to the root of the problem, not something they "think" is the cause.

      Something that they really need to remember is that murder is murder regardless of the weapon being used. What's to say that in the absence of a gun this criminal wouldn't have used a bomb, knife, axe, car, club, rock, etc, etc as a weapon?

    121. Re:Haven't these people learned? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      when you take this view with the laws that law enforcement more commonly enforces, and the ones people more commonly go to jail for, you can no longer categorize people with nice convenient labels.

      Legalize pot and hash use (yeah, that's likely to happen) and many problems simply go away. I don't use either any more but realize that that one issue is extremely important. Otherwise "upstanding citizens" have to lurk to the dark side to access their preferred recreational substances.

    122. Re:Haven't these people learned? by mpe · · Score: 1

      According to the article, the last time they tightened gun laws in Germany was in 2002 in response to a guy killing 16 people. So... that's what, 31 people in 7 years? About 4.5 a year? Statistically, you're more likely to win the lottery than be shot by a crazed gunman. Or be struck by lightning. Hell, you take a bigger risk just crossing the street.

      5 people a year would probably be well behind "freak accidents" in a small country. Never mind one with a population of 80 odd million.

      This isn't about safety. No, these politicians know exactly what they're doing. They LOVE stuff like this happening. It just gives them one more way to subjugate the public.

      You also see this with other minor risks such as terrorism. With the latest being swine flu...

    123. Re:Haven't these people learned? by jabithew · · Score: 1

      I agree with Guido here, "accomplishment" has been redefined to mean "RsG approves of this", which leaves most of his argument begging the question.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    124. Re:Haven't these people learned? by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Do you really think giving 11 to 17 million people guns would lead to anything good today?
      I'm pretty sure the vast majority on this side of the pond would disagree with you... Strict gun control is great! And frankly, I don't want the right to defend myself... I'm perfectly fine leaving that job to the professionals, i.e. the police. :)

    125. Re:Haven't these people learned? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Burger King doesn't get into block wars with McDonald's just because they opened up a new restaurant right across the street.

      Funny you should bring up that example. They may not get into block wars, but there have been legal battles. My understanding is that McDonald's spends millions of dollars evaluating neighborhoods--what other businesses are there, what's traffic and parking like--and have made a real science of finding new locations. BK has a similar strategy: they wait until McD's opens up a restaurant and open up one of theirs a block or so away.

      McD's has apparently tried to stop this coat-tail strategy, but unfortunately for them, there's nothing they can do about it, short of not doing the research and/or not opening up any new locations.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    126. Re:Haven't these people learned? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      You really aren't aware of the kind of propaganda that they were exposed to, were you? One of the master race being killed by a nest of subhumans would not have damaged morale, it would have fuelled their hatred.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    127. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal people also think the world is 7,000 years old.

      NO they don't. Maybe in the US.

    128. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically the same amount of people would probably have died - if not more.

      Armed resistance would most likely require the killing of those your resisting. And it would be met with more brutal force. We're not talking about some opportunistic muggers here - we're talking about people that were willing to march across Europe killing any who stood in their way, and damn near managed it.

      True, a few more Nazi's would have lost their lives early on - but they would merely have added to the death toll, not detracted from it.

    129. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not from the US so excuse my ignorance.
      But reading the constitution isn't that exactly how it says it should be already?
      Reading the thing, I was of the impression that everyone is expected to carry a gun.

      And given that at least one person will do so, everyone else will need to, too.

      So the logical conclusion is that it would already be like you described.

      cheers,
            Danny

    130. Re:Haven't these people learned? by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      Resistance is best accomplished through other means. If you must resist violently, explosives are a better choice than firearms, sabotage a better choice than a direct fight.

      are we talking about the iraq war here?

    131. Re:Haven't these people learned? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Fighting to the bitter end isn't either. Had the Warsaw Uprising resulted in the victims escaping death, or halted the advance of the German army, then I might call it an accomplishment.

      A bit of history might be relevant here. The Warsaw Uprising happened as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw. It was a last ditch attempt to keep the remaining Jews alive till the Soviets could "rescue" them (it must be remembered that the Soviets cared as little for Jews as the Nazis).

      Unfortunately, Stalin didn't really want a bunch of feisty Jews in his territory post-war, so teh Soviet Army halted its advance until the Germans could deal with the Uprising.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    132. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, it wasn't a problem for the Germans. It was a problem for the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals

      ...some of whom were also Germans. Or maybe you meant to use "Nazis"?

    133. Re:Haven't these people learned? by liquiddark · · Score: 1

      The couple of research articles on the topic I've read on the topic suggest that there aren't vast profits for the people doing most of the shooting. Drug dealing at the street level is apparently frequently a below-the-poverty-line activity. It is *just* possible that legalizing drugs would simply close off this line of work and force these individuals into a different line of criminal activity without affecting the level of violence involved significantly.

    134. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going by your analysis '1) education' was quite a problem for yourself as well.

    135. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is am image constructed by a soldier to say how great soldiers are compared to everyone else. Every single profession and every single person in the world makes up these kinds of images for him- or herself. They serve to motivate people to perform their jobs well (good), and to abuse any power they are given (bad). That is all.

    136. Re:Haven't these people learned? by jackd · · Score: 1

      Exclude drug-related murders from both Germany and the US. The remaining violence statistics are on par.

      Absolutely complete BS. There exist no reliable statistics whatsoever that shows whether a particular crime is motived by drugs or not. Motivation for a particular crime is not tracked on any national level, so your post is complete speculation. The US has a far higher violent crime rate than any other country in the western world.

    137. Re:Haven't these people learned? by mirkob · · Score: 1

      Because you must think that it's better to perish in a gas chamber after months of humiliating existence in a concentration camp then to die fighting next to your comrades

      because about no one know what will happen to him when he was rounded up.

      the majority of the world (and of the german themselves) discovered it only when the allied soldier conquered the camps.

      so resit to the death or be "simply" relocate was the choice of the moment for most (if they had weapon and time to use them) if they know at all that something will happen and what could it been.

    138. Re:Haven't these people learned? by aurispector · · Score: 1

      Everything that's been said in this entire thread, whether about Nazi Germany or Iraq points toward one thing: the need to limit the power of the government. People are the same everywhere. Some are smart, some stupid, some selfish and some selfless. You simply can not blindly trust "government". People run the government, people are flawed and hence government is flawed. The US has extremists, both fascists and communists, in the government right now although they don't call themselves by those names. Instead we have a two party system representing two faces of the same corporate coin, governmental secrecy and a dying newspaper industry being supplanted by corporate media. The need for free elections, checks and balances and a free press have never been more obvious.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    139. Re:Haven't these people learned? by obi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, drugs most definitely are illegal in Germany. By your reasoning, Germany's murder rate should be the same as in the US?

    140. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Maybe those being bullied should turn around and fight back physically to the verbal/physical bullying, cause I'll be damned, everytime I did it, they stopped, just like my dad told me they would. All this pussy 'ignore them and they will stop' and 'everyone is a winner' bullshit mentality that has been getting stronger and stronger throughout society is what will be the cause of it's downfall.

    141. Re:Haven't these people learned? by harmonica · · Score: 1

      Come on, look at Kristalnacht. Or the murder of countless Jews openly, either by mob or by SS. They started building the camps because it was taking too long, not to hide what they were up to.

      They started building the camps early on, and they weren't about killing people at first, but about controlling political opponents. The "Endlösung" was decided on much later, as were "Vernichtungslager", where many arriving prisoners were killed at once.

      What you're talking about isn't ignorance, it's denial. Big difference.

      Now, in the occupied nations, I'll grant your point. But those are also the places where the population resisted the SS, typically by hiding the Jews, helping them flee, or just being silent when the SS came knocking. In places where antisemitism was already rampant, the SS had all the local support they needed.

      I don't argue that people knew that Jews and other people were discriminated against and shipped off, that was part of everyday life. But that they were sent (mostly) east to be killed in an industrialized manner? No, that was not common knowledge. There was a reason the Wannseekonferenz was secret, and that was in 1942, when the war had been going on for two years already.

      While the Nazis themselves documented their killings, there were a lot of euphemisms and codes and even falsifications. They knew that what they were doing was morally wrong, and that it was nothing to give the general population too much information about. There even were propaganda clips showing Jews in relatively nice "internment camps".

      It also depended on where you lived. If there was a KZ nearby, you probably knew more than the average citizen.

      Another question is if something had changed if everyone had known. Not a lot, probably. Some people thought it was a good idea, most were afraid to speak up and criticize anything. You could be sent to a KZ for simply making fun of Nazism.

    142. Re:Haven't these people learned? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Lots of local laws and a big argument on what the second amendment EXACTLY means results in a hodgepodge of carrying laws and habits. The end result is that the vast majority of Americans do not carry a gun in public (legally or otherwise). More rural areas in certain states increase your odds, while heading to large cities in others means you basically won't see a gun on anybody but a cop or a gangbanger.

      And then there's Texas.

      There's certainly a certain mythos about guns in the US that make it sound like everyone carries one, but the reality really is pretty far from that.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    143. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LoL, give me a break. self serving propaganda. Representing authority as 'sheepdogs' ? What he needs to say is that sheepdogs are just wolves who don't bite while someone is watching. What a clown, too bad this asshole didn't die in war. Stupid military brainwashed assclowns.

    144. Re:Haven't these people learned? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Haven't these people learned that they are just going to cause a much bigger problem then they are trying to solve?

      Haven't you learned by now that they're trying to solve a very different problem from the stated one? If you keep down this road, tt some point you have to start throwing little boys in prison for pointing sticks at each other — but that's not their goal, their goal is to prevent people from being able to use paintball as tactical training. This is just an excuse. History is about to repeat itself, are you watching?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    145. Re:Haven't these people learned? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Drugs have about as much to do with the violence as the guns do.

      You know, America had an experiment with banning drugs; we banned alcohol. The result was that organized crime produced and sold alcohol and became wealthy heroes overnight by giving the people what they wanted. Guess what the difference is with the prohibition against the various Schedule A chemicals? Alcohol doesn't compete with prescription medication, but practically everything else on schedule A does. Even LSD and MDMA have again and again been shown to be useful for psychotherapy. Follow the money...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    146. Re:Haven't these people learned? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > What is the root of the problem? I know it's not video games, music, or any other activity or media that they could honestly care to ban.

      Why do you assume it is only one thing?

      It's hard to say what the root cause when the system of greed, power, and intolerance is designed to keep the slaves from waking up.

      Fortunately the ignorance of both Atheism & Theism will soon be over.

    147. Re:Haven't these people learned? by MoreDruid · · Score: 1
      the problem with the reasoning of wolves and sheepdogs is that that depends on which side you're standing. What might be a wolf for you can be my sheepdog. Both know to use violence to solve their problems. Luckily there are reigns in place (treaties) that can mitigate the damage two "sheepdog" camps could cause.

      In general the explanation works if you only look inside your own territory, as soon as you broaden your horizon you come across the problem explained above.

      --
      The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
    148. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whole different type of engagement. Lets say the number of jews rounded up and killed really was 8 million. It was done one family at a time, so lets say 8 people per family. 1 million such engagements with one casualty apiece, they would have mutinied long before they got anywhere near close to 1 million engagements. If, for some crazy idealogical reason they didn't mutiny, well 1 million casualties would have ended the war all on its own.

    149. Re:Haven't these people learned? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Not every problem needs to be solved. Many thousands die every year from automobiles. Many die from flu or diabetes or poisoning or swimming pools or stairs. We are all very expendable, and a few people dying by violence means absolutely nothing, while limiting freedom means the billions who are still alive become less fortunate than the dead.

    150. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what I like to know,what are all those armed Germans doing in Afghanistan,who's war are they fighting? and over 60 years since WWII the American terrorists are still loitering around in Germany.
      It is not time for you US/Israel warmongers to pack up and quit murdering people,that don't agree with you??

    151. Re:Haven't these people learned? by mog007 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have drug dealers and McDonald's using the courts to make their battles than firearms.

      When they use firearms, reactionary people try to take the guns away from everybody.

    152. Re:Haven't these people learned? by kd5zex · · Score: 1

      I'm a Texan you insensitive clod.

      And yes, I do carry a pistol. :D

    153. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really believe the continual "HATE SPEECH"whining about the holocaust will help your causes?
      You are really turning once sympathetic listeners in to enemies.
      Many of us are getting tired of listening or reading about YOUR suffering,while many millions more suffered worst,without being guilty of anything!!
      You might also research why the Weimar republic collapsed and ultimately spawned Hitler and the Third Reich,the parallel situation is unfolding here with the same cast of Bedouin tribe members.

    154. Re:Haven't these people learned? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Actually some aspects of the proposed laws do indeed get to the root of the problem.

      Are you considering the root of the problem to be people's motivation to kill others or their ability to do so? I don't see how this addresses either.

      For instance tightening the restrictions on how registered guns are stored...

      While there is debate as to whether legislation like this helps or hurts the problem, let's assume for the sake of argument this law 100% stops others from accessing registered firearms. Does that solve the problem? Will the potential killer, thwarted by the government, go on to lead a productive life or will they kill people using poison or bombs or knives or any one of a hundred other methods? In some places, firearm bans have drastically reduced deaths with firearms... but at the same time death with clubs and fists and bombs have gone up more than enough to make up for said change. In a few south american countries you can go look at the many people maimed by drive by pipe bombs and molotov cocktail attacks... more dead and injured bystanders than there used to be. I think any attempt to address one tool used for committing violence against others is addressing part of one symptom, certainly not the root of the problem. That doesn't mean it is bad idea to address one symptom, but we need to be clinical about it instead of exploiting people's fears by taking action, with no evidence said action will result in any benefit.

    155. Re:Haven't these people learned? by atamido · · Score: 1

      From various exposes and such that I've seen on TV, it seems to be a quick cash method for the lazy that end up a large percentage of their profits just using drugs. Much like people involved in petty theft, or stealing copper cables to be sold. Sure you could make more money by just going and getting a job at McDonalds, but they lack the self discipline to actually show up to a job.

      (I don't know if things are really being portrayed properly or not, but that is how it is shown.)

    156. Re:Haven't these people learned? by mog007 · · Score: 1

      Here's where I disagree.

      Pot's safety is not my motivation for calling for it to be legalized. If evidence were shown that made pot more addictive than heroin, and more dangerous than meth and cocaine combined, I'd probably call for its legality more strongly. It's similar to freedom of speech. We don't recognize freedom of speech to protect Disney or Looney Toons. We protect speech that's offensive, and vile. Rights are just the ability to make stupid decisions, because we learn from our mistakes... usually.

      This issue isn't about safety, because as you mentioned, alcohol and tobacco are quite dangerous. No, this issue is about the freedom to self-medicate, which is what keeps quackery like herbal supplement stores in business. It's also about a larger right that you control your body, because you aren't a slave, and if you control your body it means you can run it on whatever you want.

    157. Re:Haven't these people learned? by swillden · · Score: 1

      For instance tightening the restrictions on how registered guns are stored (the gun in this shooting was registered by the father but was not locked away -- had it been, this particular shooting certainly would have been much more difficult).

      Had there been some armed teachers at the school, it never would have happened at all. Shooters like this choose places where no guns are allowed for a reason. And, if he'd chosen to do it anyway, his rampage would have been very brief.

      It's impossible to make guns inaccessible to killers. What's needed is to make them accessible to rational, law-abiding people so that killers have no chance to succeed.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    158. Re:Haven't these people learned? by WCguru42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are two major flaws with this story...

      The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed.

      Unless you're in the real world. Look at those Pennsylvania judges that sent all those kids to juvenile correction centers in exchange for cash payouts from those running the facilities. The judge is not your typical "sheepdog" but they sit in equivalent seats of authority. Those two judges aren't getting anything near the punishment they deserve (the minimum of which should be equal time in jail to what they sent those kids away for) defeating the whole notion that "sheepdogs" will be severely punished for when they do harm. Democracies and Republics don't work like shepherds, because a real shepherd would actually deal with a sheepdog attacking his flock.

      Speaking of shepherds, your story doesn't even mention them. Ever wonder who has the greatest power in the sheep, sheepdog, wolf story. It's the shepherd, and the shepherd doesn't even have to use violence. And that, my friends, is why the shepherd can protect his flock without terrifying them. The difference between the sheepdog and the shepherd in real life is the difference between the cop who gets his gun and thinks, "Now I've got the power." and the cop who gets his gun and thinks, "I hope I never have to use this." The sheepdog is nothing but a wolf who hasn't attacked the wrong people. The shepherd doesn't want to use his power unless necessary and will not resort to it until the time requires it.

      Still, by adding in this extra player, you're still left with an oversimplification of good and evil. If you want a free society you have to live with the dangers of a free society. If we had authoritarian rule then there probably wouldn't be as much violence in the public, but you've gotta believe the government would be killing off all those who broke the least of laws or just happened to upset someone in authority. I'd rather have the risks of freedom than any government "security blanket." Simply put, those who tell us that our freedoms our not the most important things are those who are too afraid to step into the dark and face the unknown. These are the kinds of people that would never go to the moon, that would never risk their lives for something, and who seek only to control what is ultimately uncontrollable, humanity.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    159. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History is filled with examples of asymetric warfare where armed fanatics bested or held their own against huge numerical and military advantages.

      Name two* in the current century.

      *Not including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Georgia :p

    160. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

      The world is a dangerous place, "sheepdog" security theater isn't going to save them

      I think you're misunderstanding part of the analogy. "Sheepdogs" include ordinary citizens who go around armed, who many of the "sheep" believe should be disarmed. Allowing "sheepdogs" to keep their guns is the opposite of security theater because in most places firearms must be carried concealed, and because no politician can claim credit for the presence of an armed bystander.

    161. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely said. I would have added a comment about how wolves and sheepdogs can, and do interbreed. Wolves and dogs are the same species, and were recently reclassified as such.

    162. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Velex · · Score: 1

      What don't you like about sheepdogs? Are they intimidating to you?

      You, sir, fail. And I have some damned good reasons for being afraid of your vigilante mindset.

      People like you with your oversimplified thinking are the reason I have to carry mace while jogging. I'm not worried about some hooligan. I'm worried about people like you mistaking me for one of the bad guys because I'm not your ideal of these "sheep" you're protecting. After all, people like you feel you need to use violence to protect your precious "sheep," and you see "wolves" everywhere you look.

      Oversimplified and disturbingly childish thinking. Why not go focus on the real evil out there? Oh, sorry, that's too much like real work when you can go on witch hunts instead. Oh, sorry again, wolf hunts or somesuch. I keep forgetting I need to simplify my language around people like you.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    163. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      I think you are looking at this with a too modern perspective. Consider the scale of death in WWII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties Now if you compare Russian and German casualties you have a relation of 23.1 million (Soviet Union) to 7.2 million (Germany) deaths. And Russia had an army, you shouldn't expect a disorganized group, untrained and lightly armed, to have the same effect.

      Considering morale: Germany lost more than 10% of their population in the course of the war. The Waffen SS (it's not fair to compare them to the real SS, but just to get a feel for the scale) lost 35% of their troops.

      Looking at these numbers, it appears rather unlikely that armed Jewish resistance would have ended the war, or that it would have caused a mutiny in the SS. Nevertheless - I concur that if it had been possible to organize this resistance, it would have made a difference to the course of the war.

    164. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Oh wow, another American demonstrating his knowledge of WWII history.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    165. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Are you serious?

      Absolutely.

      Stalin killed more people than Hitler in terms of outright genocide. He let 10 million Ukrainians starve to death in the 30s over a policy dispute, and that's barely scratching the surface for him.

      No.

      First of all, Ukrainian famine was a result of drought exacerbated by poor management -- the "evidence" that US propaganda loves to present was at most misguided last-ditch efforts to keep the famine from wiping out the population. Second, famine was not limited to Ukraine -- some regions in Russia suffered about as much.

      Third, at no point before or after that there was any conflict, significant discrimination or any ethnic tension between Russians and Ukrainians, and for most of USSR history, Ukraine was second most powerful member in the union. "Genocide" would be absolutely pointless.

      Fourth, Stalin himself was Georgian, and all government policies in Ukraine were implemented by Ukrainians.

      Of course, being American, you would rather listen to "historians" like Robert Conquest, who could only cite their imagination and great demand for anti-Soviet propaganda as their sources.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    166. Re:Haven't these people learned? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      A few civilians might stave off a death squad consisting of green troops with SMGs, but they'd be hopelessly outmatched by even one armoured vehicle.

      That depends on the terrain. Tanks are not as effective in densely built-up cities as they are in open, level ground. It's hard to elevate a 155mm cannon to take out someone dropping Molotov cocktails on you from almost directly above.

    167. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      Actually, when it comes to the question of whether the Holodomor constitutes genocide, I give more credence to the Ukrainian government, which has officially recognized it as such, than Soviet apologists.

      Stalin withheld food from the Ukrainians until they could meet production quotas they didn't have a prayer of filling. The reasons for doing this may be disputable, but the government knew the effect would be disastrous on the Ukrainian population and proceeded to do it anyway. Not all genocide involves rounding people up and putting them in ovens. Taking food from people with the intent of letting them die is just as much murder. And mass murder that is targeted against a specific population is genocide.

      I don't think you understand the history of tensions between the Soviet government and Ukrainian nationalists. And your attempts to absolve Stalin of blame because the policies were supposedly implemented by Ukrainians--as if Stalin didn't know about them and couldn't have done anything about them--are laughable.

    168. Re:Haven't these people learned? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Except that Team America's trichotomy of people into pussies, assholes and dicks is far more intellectually tenable. F**k yeah!

    169. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter how racist and unfair you think the police where you live are how likely are you to shot back if they come and demand your guns under a new law? Would you have fired back to stop them from taking you to a japanese internment camp in WWII?

      And you've hit the nail on the head of exactly why I'm opposed to gun registration, and why many people keep "off the books" rifles buried with a crate of ammo, somewhere where they'll be accessible AFTER people realize where the sequence of events is leading.

    170. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a fox chases a rabbit, the rabbit will always try its best to win. For you see, the rabbit is fighting for its life, while the fox is fighting for food.

    171. Re:Haven't these people learned? by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Most of what you say sounds somewhat reasonable, except for "self-defense will only be valid if another gun was drawn". That's a terrible idea. That would prevent someone from defending themselves from thugs with knives, a gang with baseball bats, et cetera: all things that can kill. Hell, even someone unarmed but much stronger than you and enraged is capable of killing. A gun should be a reasonable defense anytime you face a threat to your life.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    172. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Actually, when it comes to the question of whether the Holodomor constitutes genocide, I give more credence to the Ukrainian government, which has officially recognized it as such, than Soviet apologists.

      Yeah, the same Ukrainian government that is desperately trying to find some kind of "national idea" that will compensate for its massive incompetence, and the same Ukrainian government that tried to cozy up to US, to the extent of sending its military to Iraq. They still didn't outdo Poland though.

      Stalin withheld food from the Ukrainians until they could meet production quotas they didn't have a prayer of filling. The reasons for doing this may be disputable, but the government knew the effect would be disastrous on the Ukrainian population and proceeded to do it anyway. Not all genocide involves rounding people up and putting them in ovens. Taking food from people with the intent of letting them die is just as much murder. And mass murder that is targeted against a specific population is genocide.

      It was ALREADY a massive famine when government started this. It was a mismanagement, but government neither intentionally cause the famine, nor targeted any particular ethnicity in any actions related to it.

      I don't think you understand the history of tensions between the Soviet government and Ukrainian nationalists.

      I know it very well. "Ukrainian nationalists" suddenly appear every time when either there is something to loot, or when a foreign state (Germany, US, and before that even Poland) offers them support.

      And your attempts to absolve Stalin of blame because the policies were supposedly implemented by Ukrainians--as if Stalin didn't know about them and couldn't have done anything about them--are laughable.

      I am not trying to absolve Stalin of blame for things he did -- and there is plenty of blame he deserves. The problem is, you Americans have absolutely no idea what he is actually responsible for, and what is attributed to him in an attempt to paint him as some kind of generic villain. Your government was so afraid that you will find Communists' ideas attractive, it didn't seem enough to have a really bad Communist ruler as a bogeyman, they had to present him as worst possible politician and combination of all imaginable sins, genocide included.

      Two millions dead, oppressive rule and random acts of assholeness just didn't seem impressive enough, so your propaganda not only massively inflated Stalin's crimes, it went as far as whitewashing Hitler. Think of it -- they tell you about Hitler killing 6-11 millions in Holocaust, and never mention 70 millions of WWII victims in Europe, who are solely his responsibility, the number that dwarfs any other act of mass murder, war, genocide or anything that happened before or after that. It's almost a quarter of your country's population. The only reason why you aren't taught this in school is to make him less of a distraction from the image of the designated greatest villain ever -- Stalin. Just because he was a Communist, and there was nothing more important than making Communists look bad. The ends justifiy the means, right?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    173. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there is debate as to whether legislation like this helps or hurts the problem, let's assume for the sake of argument this law 100% stops others from accessing registered firearms. Does that solve the problem? Will the potential killer, thwarted by the government, go on to lead a productive life or will they kill people using poison or bombs or knives or any one of a hundred other methods?

      We're talking about a teenager who was going through a bout of depression, and happened to have easy access to a gun sitting there waiting to be picked up and fired. We're not talking about some fictional Hannibal Lecter's lifelong scheming to kill by any means. Yup, I think keeping if we'd kept the gun out of the hands of that depressed teenager, he would probably have got over it and gone on to life a productive life. Whether or not that's certain, one thing is certain: now he won't go on to a productive life, and neither will the many children he killed either.

    174. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had there been some armed teachers at the school, it never would have happened at all. Shooters like this choose places where no guns are allowed for a reason.

      This was in Germany. The public aren't allowed to just carry guns around anywhere. His choice of a school was not because "I know, there'll be many fewer guns there"; it was because he wanted to kill people his own age. You think deregulating the weapons is a solution? So of course there should be no knife-related crimes at all, because they can be purchased unlicensed and are in every home ... whoops.

    175. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You are mixing the "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" with the "Warsaw Uprising" here. The former were about 1000 Jews with little Polish support in 1943, the latter the more than 20000 Polish Home Army with some Jewish members in 1944 - at that time Warsaw was long "cleansed" of Jews.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    176. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      The only reason why the insurgents had any "success" was that the Germans wanted to get all the valuables out of the Ghetto intact. If they had just fire bombed the whole Ghetto on day one, that would have been it.

      Just see how much success a few armed men (and a large number of unarmed people around them) have against an army without such considerations - US and Israeli forces have to problem with massive attacks on buildings they suspect they have been shot at from. Saddam killed most people from a village when some shot at him there.

      Finally: thousands of Jews survived the Holocaust in Germany by hiding - none by fighting back.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    177. Re:Haven't these people learned? by sskang · · Score: 1

      The other hero is the shepherd, who has bred the sheepdog since he was a puppy, has likely shared his home and food with him and made him part of the family, but will not hesitate to take him out the back with a rifle the moment he goes feral. We have plenty of sheepdogs, wish there were better shepherds around.

    178. Re:Haven't these people learned? by swillden · · Score: 1

      You think deregulating the weapons is a solution?

      I think allowing law-abiding, responsible adults to carry firearms is a solution. I guarantee you that we're not going to see any successful mass school murders in Utah, where I live, since any adult (21+) with a clean record can get a concealed firearm permit and carry at any school. At the primary and secondary level, many teachers are armed, and at the university level many students are armed.

      The key to stopping active shooters is to get armed resistance on-scene ASAP. After Columbine, this caused US law enforcement to change their tactics. Before (and at) Columbine, the approach was to wait for SWAT, with their rifles and body armor, to maximize officer safety. After Columbine, the doctrine changed: Now, the first armed officer on scene enters immediately to stop the shooter. Experience has shown that active shooters generally kill themselves at the first sign of armed resistance.

      What's even better is if armed people are on scene all the time, so that armed resistance is seconds away, not minutes. There have been three school shootings in the US where armed citizens have intervened. In all three cases, the shooter was stopped instantly, and LONG before police arrived.

      Even better than that is if potential shooters know that armed people are on scene at all times, so they know they're not going to get the opportunity to deal death unopposed.

      Oh, and before someone goes off about all the accidents that will be caused by all the guns "lying around" I'll point out that Utah has allowed school carry since 2002. In seven years there have been ZERO incidents at any of the dozen universities or hundred-plus primary or secondary schools. And by "incidents" I mean not just shootings, but threats, brandished weapons, etc. I don't believe there have even been any weapons left lying around; it hasn't made the news, anyway.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    179. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      Finally: thousands of Jews survived the Holocaust in Germany by hiding - none by fighting back.

      Two words for you: Sobibor. Treblinka.

      "...of 1,500 prisoners, only 40 are known to have survived the [Treblinka] revolt. These survivors are almost all of the known survivors of Treblinka camp."

      Or do these not count because they weren't technically in Germany (and also aren't convenient for you)?

    180. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the American propaganda that I've been fed all my life is so terrified of the notion that somebody might find communism attractive that they have been ascribing the deaths en masse in the Soviet Union to Stalin in particular rather than the shortcomings of communism itself? Seems sort of counterproductive to me.

      Anyway, you're completely wrong. Most people in the United States have only have a very vague idea, if they have heard at all, of the atrocities Stalin committed. Vastly more are aware of what Hitler did. In fact, when WWII is discussed in schools, Stalin is generally portrayed as a hero who helped us liberate Europe from the grasp of an evil dictator. His own genocides are usually swept by the wayside, because A) they're much more difficult to discuss without an in depth knowledge of Soviet politics in the early 20th century, B) he committed them by and large upon his own people, so it just doesn't produce the same degree of revulsion in the public, and C) he was much more subtle about it than Hitler, so it's just a much drier subject than the Holocaust, especially since it doesn't particularly involve the United States.

      The reason why people usually talk about the 11-17 million (although some people are under the misapprehension that the number was as small as 6 million) killed in the Holocaust rather than including the war deaths in WWII is because these are two separate things. Casualties of war, even those resulting from collateral damage, are QUITE different from the targeted extermination of a group of people based on ethnicity. Hitler was evil enough without embellishing what he did. In fact, mentioning that Hitler was actually responsible for the deaths of 70 million people rather than focusing on just the ones he exterminated would lessen the impact of the Holocaust in people's minds because the exterminations would simply be folded into "casualties of war". It is important to keep these two concepts separate. The murder of one human being in cold blood is a far worse crime than causing the death of ten thousand soldiers on the battlefield.

      Hitler may have been more evil than Stalin, but he couldn't match him in terms of sheer numbers.

    181. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experience has shown that active shooters generally kill themselves at the first sign of armed resistance.

      That would change. They do so because they expect they are outnumbered by marksmen in body armour, not because they think Grandpa Jim the fat history teacher has a gun he can barely aim.

      What's even better is if armed people are on scene all the time, so that armed resistance is seconds away, not minutes. There have been three school shootings in the US where armed citizens have intervened. In all three cases, the shooter was stopped instantly, and LONG before police arrived.

      I'd be surprised if there have been three school shootings in Germany.

      Even better than that is if potential shooters know that armed people are on scene at all times, so they know they're not going to get the opportunity to deal death unopposed.

      Ah, there's nothing like making sure the gunman is prepared for the resistance...

      Oh, and before someone goes off about all the accidents that will be caused by all the guns "lying around" I'll point out that Utah has allowed school carry since 2002. In seven years there have been ZERO incidents at any of the dozen universities or hundred-plus primary or secondary schools.

      Those accidents tend to happen at home. There have been plenty of cases of small children blowing away their siblings because they played cowboys and indians with daddy's gun. (Or just killing themselves by mishandling a weapon they should not have been able to access.)

    182. Re:Haven't these people learned? by swillden · · Score: 1

      That would change. They do so because they expect they are outnumbered by marksmen in body armour, not because they think Grandpa Jim the fat history teacher has a gun he can barely aim

      And yet, when faced by (a) a vice principal with a handgun, or (b) a restaurant owner with a shot gun or (c) a couple of adult students with their personal pistols, the shooters stopped.

      Do you have any examples of shooters who have been opposed by armed citizens (not cops) and not given up?

      There is a lot of conjecture out there, most of it (like yours) badly misinformed. Though it's sad that we do, we've seen enough actual shootings to base our decisions on actual data.

      I'd be surprised if there have been three school shootings in Germany.

      This (incomplete) list has six.

      Ah, there's nothing like making sure the gunman is prepared for the resistance...

      Show me one example of a gunman who chose to commit mass murder in a location where he knew he'd encounter armed resistance.

      Actually, there have been a couple that were staged by organized terror groups, but those don't count; you can't stop those with anything less than serious military forces.

      Those accidents tend to happen at home. There have been plenty of cases of small children blowing away their siblings because they played cowboys and indians with daddy's gun.

      And those are relevant to this discussion how? I'm talking about adults carrying concealed weapons for defense.

      I should mention, though, that most people vastly overestimate the scale of the offtopic problem you mention. There are less than 100 such incidents per year in the US, and the numbers decline every year. In 2006, the most recent year for which the CDC has numbers available, there were 56 children ages 0-14 killed in firearms accidents. Each one is tragic, and I think their parents should be prosecuted for not teaching them gun safety and for not keeping the weapons out of their reach, but the scale of the problem is often exaggerated.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    183. Re:Haven't these people learned? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Why is this funny? More like insightful.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    184. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the American propaganda that I've been fed all my life is so terrified of the notion that somebody might find communism attractive that they have been ascribing the deaths en masse in the Soviet Union to Stalin in particular rather than the shortcomings of communism itself? Seems sort of counterproductive to me.

      Propaganda does not work by intellectual discussion, and it is very difficult to demonstrate inherent virtues or shortcomings of some idea anyway. On the other hand, pointing fingers at poster boys and their actions, claiming that they discredit their political movements/organizations is extremely easy, and pretty much all political propaganda is based on that.

      Anyway, you're completely wrong. Most people in the United States have only have a very vague idea, if they have heard at all, of the atrocities Stalin committed. Vastly more are aware of what Hitler did.

      This is the whole point -- making him look worse than Hitler. Stalin is described in a manner that doesn't even leave anything memorable -- he is painted as some kind of comic book villain, someone who did everything evil imaginable and unimaginable.

      Vastly more are aware of what Hitler did. In fact, when WWII is discussed in schools, Stalin is generally portrayed as a hero who helped us liberate Europe from the grasp of an evil dictator. His own genocides are usually swept by the wayside, because A) they're much more difficult to discuss without an in depth knowledge of Soviet politics in the early 20th century, B) he committed them by and large upon his own people, so it just doesn't produce the same degree of revulsion in the public, and C) he was much more subtle about it than Hitler, so it's just a much drier subject than the Holocaust, especially since it doesn't particularly involve the United States.

      I have never ever heard anyone in US teaching it in this manner. After WWII Communists were always portrayed as an enemy, and Stalin as leader of those enemies -- even long after his death and denouncement by Khruschev. Look at the message in this thread by pipingguy -- he asked how much Stalin participated in Holocaust.

      Casualties of war, even those resulting from collateral damage, are QUITE different from the targeted extermination of a group of people based on ethnicity.

      "Casualties of war"? Who, do you think, killed all those people? Except for seven millions Germans, they were all killed by Nazi. Indiscriminate mass murder of people, soldiers and civilians alike, in the process of aggressive war covering a whole continent is somehow BETTER than mass murder, 1/10 of the former in scale, targeting a particular ethnicity? What kind of sick fuck are you? I am Jewish myself, and I find this disgusting -- Nazi rule in Germany and WWII was an unprecedented tragedy, and Holocaust is merely a part of it.

      Hitler may have been more evil than Stalin, but he couldn't match him in terms of sheer numbers.

      Stalin killed up to two millions. This is what was found after going through archives. Bad enough, but this is dwarfed by both Holocaust and WWII.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    185. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      This is the whole point -- making him look worse than Hitler.

      If you seriously believe that the majority of people in the United States believe Stalin was more evil than Hitler, then you are delusional. Ask ten people on the street in the United States whether Hitler or Stalin was worse, and I guarantee you that all of them will say Hitler. As I said, most people barely know who Stalin is. Everybody knows Hitler was a bad guy. You're contradicting yourself by stating that U.S. propaganda has been focused on painting Stalin as the most evil monster in history, then saying it proves your point when nobody knows or particularly is interested in what Stalin did. Your logic is truly dizzying.

      I have never ever heard anyone in US teaching it in this manner.

      Then open up a history book. Go on, go down to your local high school and ask to see one of their world history books. Open it and read about World War II. I'll wait. You'll see I'm right, whether or not you have "heard" of it or not. Is it not the truth? As far as we were concerned in WWII, Stalin was one of our staunchest allies. Some of the most famous photos from the era depict Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin meeting.

      Look at the message in this thread by pipingguy -- he asked how much Stalin participated in Holocaust.

      First, he's a fool who can't use Google. Second, if you check out his website, it's registered to someone in Canada. Hardly a great example to use if you're decrying the state of the American educational system. Besides, doesn't that just prove my point that most people don't really even have much of an idea what he did? There is not, despite your fervent belief, a systematic attempt to paint communism as evil on the basis of Stalin's atrocities. Or rather, if there is, they're doing a piss poor job of it, when people are asking if he was a Nazi or something.

      Maybe, just maybe, people are rejecting communism on the merits? No, it can't be that--there must be a focused effort to unfairly deride one of the most famous proponents of communism as a mass murderer. So the answer is... to prove he wasn't a mass murderer, even though he was? Or maybe prove he wasn't quite as bad a mass murderer as most people have no idea that he actually was? I don't get it.

      "Casualties of war"? Who, do you think, killed all those people? Except for seven millions Germans, they were all killed by Nazi. Indiscriminate mass murder of people, soldiers and civilians alike, in the process of aggressive war covering a whole continent is somehow BETTER than mass murder, 1/10 of the former in scale, targeting a particular ethnicity? What kind of sick fuck are you? I am Jewish myself, and I find this disgusting -- Nazi rule in Germany and WWII was an unprecedented tragedy, and Holocaust is merely a part of it.

      So let me get this straight. Casualties resulting from war are equivalent to mass premeditated murder targeted against a specific ethnicity? But massive casualties suffered by a particular ethnic population due to the indifference or incompetence of Ol' Joe are somehow excused from being genocide? Wow.

      If considering genocide, on any scale, to be worse than killing soldiers on the battlefield makes me a "sick fuck", then that is what I am proud to be. And both Hitler and Stalin are guilty of genocide.

    186. Re:Haven't these people learned? by williamhb · · Score: 1

      Though it's sad that we do, we've seen enough actual shootings to base our decisions on actual data.

      Happily, in countries with decent gun controls, we haven't.

      This (incomplete) list has six.

      Meanwhile, the US had 9 just in 2008 alone. Wowsers.

      Show me one example of a gunman who chose to commit mass murder in a location where he knew he'd encounter armed resistance.

      Since you asked for only one - plenty of guns drive up and down the highways each day, and the Beltway snipers didn't seem to care.

      And those [accidents at home causing death by handguns] are relevant to this discussion how?

      Hmm, let me think how innocent deaths by handguns might be relevant to a conversation about preventing innocent deaths by handguns. Tricky one; I'll get back to you on that.

    187. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      If you seriously believe that the majority of people in the United States believe Stalin was more evil than Hitler, then you are delusional. Ask ten people on the street in the United States whether Hitler or Stalin was worse, and I guarantee you that all of them will say Hitler.

      I don't have to. You and other people in this very thread claimed that Stalin was worse. However merely HALF AN HOUR AGO I have heard an American claiming exactly that.

      As I said, most people barely know who Stalin is. Everybody knows Hitler was a bad guy.

      This is obviously not true.

      You're contradicting yourself by stating that U.S. propaganda has been focused on painting Stalin as the most evil monster in history, then saying it proves your point when nobody knows or particularly is interested in what Stalin did.

      Americans "know" that Stalin was the worst person's ever -- the details are irrelevant. Did Hitler kill 6 millions? Then Stalin killed tens of millions! Oh, Hitler killed tens of millions? Then Stalin might have killed hundreds of millions! Or billions! And that's just Jews! Hitler had syphilis? Then Stalin must have had AIDS! And fucked babies! And Pravda published an editorial that explained how it is AWWWWRIGHT!

      This is the level of "knowledge" Americans have about him.

      Your logic is truly dizzying.

      There is very little logic in this, I am talking about facts.

      So let me get this straight. Casualties resulting from war are equivalent to mass premeditated murder targeted against a specific ethnicity? But massive casualties suffered by a particular ethnic population due to the indifference or incompetence of Ol' Joe are somehow excused from being genocide? Wow.

      Yes. Killing people to advance selfish goals is bad. Killing mind-bogglingly huge numbers of people is even worse. What the murderer says about this, how he tries to justify this, what kind of excuses he presents, matters very little in the face of fact that he and his followed killed people who posed no threat to them.

      Of course, in special American kind of ethics, mass murder is perfectly justified it it is "casualties of war" -- never mind, it's a war started by Nazi with the goal of clearing up the "living space" for themselves from all "less deserving" people -- Jewish or otherwise. War is OK. Attacking formerly friendly countries is OK. Bombing and shooting at civilians is OK. But targeting a specific ethnicity while sparing others is a big no-no. Mass murder is fine as long as it's equal opportunity mass murder. This is why US government can attack countries all over the globe, killing tens of thousands of people in each of those wars -- it's all perfectly fine because it is not motivated by racism.

      This is why the whole world hates Americans. You have gobbled up your propaganda hook, line and sinker. You are responsible for all this. Not just neocons, not just Republicans, not your military. You. Remember that when next time you will talk to a foreigner about "freedom" and "democracy", and he will punch you in the face.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    188. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Finally: thousands of Jews survived the Holocaust in Germany by hiding - none by fighting back.

      Two words for you: Sobibor. Treblinka.

      "...of 1,500 prisoners, only 40 are known to have survived the [Treblinka] revolt. These survivors are almost all of the known survivors of Treblinka camp."

      Or do these not count because they weren't technically in Germany (and also aren't convenient for you)?

      What the hell does that have to do with what I wrote? Or are you telling us that prisoners taking guns from their guards and starting a revolt somehow relates to free citizens owning guns?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    189. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fighting to the bitter end isn't either. Had the Warsaw Uprising resulted in the victims escaping death, or halted the advance of the German army

      How could it, they were already on the retreat at that time.

      You've pretty much disqualified yourself from this discussion.

    190. Re:Haven't these people learned? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Though it's sad that we do, we've seen enough actual shootings to base our decisions on actual data. Happily, in countries with decent gun controls, we haven't.

      Germany is certainly getting there. Though if they were wise they'd take the opportunity to learn from the incidents in the US. The foolish don't learn from their own experiences, the wise learn from the experiences of others.

      Since you asked for only one - plenty of guns drive up and down the highways each day, and the Beltway snipers didn't seem to care.

      Lame. Obviously handguns pose no deterrent to snipers, therefore the DC snipers had no expectation of armed resistance. For that matter, soldiers armed with rifles would have posed no significant deterrent to a sniper firing a single shot from a deep hide. Care to try again?

      Hmm, let me think how innocent deaths by handguns might be relevant to a conversation about preventing innocent deaths by handguns. Tricky one; I'll get back to you on that.

      That's like bringing up statistics of people accidentally backing over toddlers in a discussion of mass murders committed with automobiles (which happens in the US as well, unfortunately; we have a violent society). The only commonality between the situations is the killing tool; motive, approach, scale and volume are completely different.

      So it strikes me as very tricky indeed to find a reason that accidents caused by negligent parents are relevant to a discussion of deliberate mass murders.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    191. Re:Haven't these people learned? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed.

      Except this part never seems to happen. Abuse of power is not usually punished, since their job is "so hard".

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    192. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      You and other people in this very thread claimed that Stalin was worse.

      I said he killed more people, not necessarily that he was worse. You can't argue with the numbers (well, I suppose you can, but you'd be wrong).

      Americans "know" that Stalin was the worst person's ever -- the details are irrelevant. Did Hitler kill 6 millions? Then Stalin killed tens of millions! Oh, Hitler killed tens of millions? Then Stalin might have killed hundreds of millions! Or billions! And that's just Jews! Hitler had syphilis? Then Stalin must have had AIDS! And fucked babies! And Pravda published an editorial that explained how it is AWWWWRIGHT!

      This is the level of "knowledge" Americans have about him.

      I'm not going to dispute this with you anymore. If you seriously believe there is a massive concerted effort to pin crimes on Stalin that he didn't commit, when you freely admit that there are a tremendous number of crimes he did commit under any definition of the word, then I don't really know how to convince you that this is your own delusion. You really should consider educating yourself. Go take a class in world history at the local community college. Until you've done that, you're just making things up because you want to believe them.

      Of course, in special American kind of ethics, mass murder is perfectly justified it it is "casualties of war" -- never mind, it's a war started by Nazi with the goal of clearing up the "living space" for themselves from all "less deserving" people -- Jewish or otherwise. War is OK. Attacking formerly friendly countries is OK. Bombing and shooting at civilians is OK. But targeting a specific ethnicity while sparing others is a big no-no. Mass murder is fine as long as it's equal opportunity mass murder. This is why US government can attack countries all over the globe, killing tens of thousands of people in each of those wars -- it's all perfectly fine because it is not motivated by racism.

      Ah, of course. It all comes back to America. No idea how that entered the discussion, but hey.

      I think I'm starting to see the problem here. I'm using the term "genocide" as defined under international law, such as the Genocide Convention. You are using the Alex Belits definition, where it only counts as genocide if you disagree with the ideology of the people committing it. So the Nazis and the United States have committed genocide, but the Soviets get a pass because communism is totally cool.

    193. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      You said no Jews survived by fighting back, presumably to make a point. I provided two counterexamples to refute your point. That's how debate works.

    194. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You said no Jews survived by fighting back,

      In Germany.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    195. Re:Haven't these people learned? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      No, US inner city culture historical interactions of race and drugs along with the uniquely US "War on (some) Drugs" is dramatically different from Germany's history of drugs and race in culture (not to mention much less draconian drug enforcement efforts).

      Those myriad differences have led to higher demand in the US, more severe penalties, fewer legal outlets (Netherlands), etc. Add to all of that being adjacent to a poor, third-world country with porous borders and you've got a very different drug problem in the US than in Germany.

      Drug prohibition is necessary but not sufficient to explain the extraordinarily high levels of violence associated with drug distribution in the US.

    196. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      I said he killed more people, not necessarily that he was worse.

      And this is obviously not true because he killed two millions -- less than any number you attributed to Hitler.

      I'm not going to dispute this with you anymore. If you seriously believe there is a massive concerted effort to pin crimes on Stalin that he didn't commit, when you freely admit that there are a tremendous number of crimes he did commit under any definition of the word, then I don't really know how to convince you that this is your own delusion.

      How so? Do you mean, the truth does not matter as long as "evil" people are involved?

      Go take a class in world history at the local community college. Until you've done that, you're just making things up because you want to believe them.

      Thank you very much, I don't need your "sovietologists" teaching me about my own history. My maternal grandfather's family was killed by Nazi -- one person in battle, the rest in mass killing of Jews from their village (Streshin, Belarus). All of them are just as dead as Jews, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, and -- yes -- Germans that would be alive if not Hitler's little exercise in world conquest. Stalin has nothing on this, and least of all it is related to other Communists.

      Ah, of course. It all comes back to America. No idea how that entered the discussion, but hey.

      You are American, and you are trying to defend American ideology that turns ethics inside out in an attempt to justify, among other things, your government's constant warmongering.

      I think I'm starting to see the problem here. I'm using the term "genocide" as defined under international law, such as the Genocide Convention. You are using the Alex Belits definition, where it only counts as genocide if you disagree with the ideology of the people committing it. So the Nazis and the United States have committed genocide, but the Soviets get a pass because communism is totally cool.

      I have already demonstrated that none of Stalin's mass murders were ethnically motivated, and that claims about Ukrainian famine being a result of genocide are baseless. This has nothing to do with definitions. Absolutely unrelated to this, the total number of deaths that Stalin is responsible for is nowhere close to anything done by Hitler -- in acts of genocide or otherwise.

      You, however not only are trying to mix up the facts to make Stalin worse than Hitler at any cost, you are clinging to your "Only genocide matters -- all other kinds of mass murder is OK!" system of values. Fortunately no one outside US borders (or Americans with any capacity for independent thinking) shares this point of view, so all I have to do is to point this out.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    197. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      How so? Do you mean, the truth does not matter as long as "evil" people are involved?

      So you admit that you believe in a massive conspiracy to attach deaths to Stalin's name unfairly. That's all anyone needs to know about you. There's no argument that can be presented to you to challenge your religious beliefs in this matter.

      I have already demonstrated that none of Stalin's mass murders were ethnically motivated, and that claims about Ukrainian famine being a result of genocide are baseless.

      "Insisted in the face of all presented evidence" would be more correct than "demonstrated".

      You, however not only are trying to mix up the facts to make Stalin worse than Hitler at any cost, you are clinging to your "Only genocide matters -- all other kinds of mass murder is OK!" system of values.

      I'm not the one excusing tens of millions of deaths that Stalin could have directly prevented had he the slightest inclination to do so because they don't fit into my very narrow and self-serving definition of genocide. And please do work on your reading comprehension skills. Twice now I've said that Stalin wasn't necessarily worse than Hitler, only that he killed more people. It's a subtle distinction, I know, but do try to comprehend it.

      Fortunately no one outside US borders (or Americans with any capacity for independent thinking) shares this point of view, so all I have to do is to point this out.

      You are the only person in the world who believes the Holocaust was anywhere near the scale of 70 million deaths. You also may well be the only person in the world who does not understand the difference between the deaths of soldiers and the intentional killing of noncombatants. Thankfully for all of us, you were not present at the signing of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

    198. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      I have a good idea! Let's rehash the entire thread piece by piece! I'll start:

      Or do these not count because they weren't technically in Germany (and also aren't convenient for you)?

      Besides, at the time, these camps WERE part of Germany.

    199. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany is certainly getting there.

      In that (sadly) it is becoming easier to obtain guns within Europe, that may be true -- though it has a very very long way to go. But your argument does not seem to help with that.

      Obviously handguns pose no deterrent to snipers, therefore the DC snipers had no expectation of armed resistance. For that matter, soldiers armed with rifles would have posed no significant deterrent to a sniper firing a single shot from a deep hide. Care to try again?

      Ah, the old "That's not fair! The gunman didn't wear a big neon 'shoot me' sign but instead used tactics to beat the expected resistance" argument. Oh, if only murderers intent on killing people would just play by the rules. But ok, let's try with your newly restricted dumb-gunman criteria: say, where there's lots and lots of heavily armed people, who are professionally trained in taking down opposing gunmen. Like, say, if a non-terrorist gunman murdered soldiers within a US Army base just this very week.

      That's like bringing up statistics of people accidentally backing over toddlers in a discussion of mass murders committed with automobiles (which happens in the US as well, unfortunately; we have a violent society). The only commonality between the situations is the killing tool

      Well, gee, I wonder whether in a discussion about the regulation of a killing tool, events where that killing tool is the only common factor might be important or enlightening. Hmmm...

    200. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      Having a gun in a fight works if the fight is nearly fair. Two men with pistols each have a decent chance of winning a gunfight. We aren't talking about that here. We're talking about a civilian against soldiers, plural. Guns don't help there. Other weapons do.

      Which is why the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about 'guns' and merely says 'arms,' which includes those other weapons. Yes, I think if someone wants to buy a wire-guided missile or a cruise missile or a howitzer or a fighter jet then he has a constitutional right to do so. And yeah, most folks wouldn't--but they could, which is what liberty is all about.

    201. Re:Haven't these people learned? by swillden · · Score: 1

      In that (sadly) it is becoming easier to obtain guns within Europe

      Do you have evidence for this claim? By all accounts I've read, it's becoming gradually *harder* to obtain guns in Europe. With no significant benefit to the violent crime rate, I might add.

      Ah, the old "That's not fair!

      Fairness has nothing to do with it. Let me explain this as simply as I can:

      • I argued that the incidence and success of school shooters would be reduced if the shooter expected armed resistance, as supported by evidence that mass shootings only occur in so-called "gun free" zones.
      • You countered that this would just cause shooters to be prepared.
      • I asked for an example of a case where this had occurred.
      • williambh gave the example of the DC sniper -- not a school shooter, and not a case where the shooter could expect any real armed resistance. In other words: Not the scenario under discussion.

      More to the point, if we could eliminate school shootings like the one in Germany and force those shooters to adopt the far less effective and much more difficult approach of the DC sniper, that would be a good thing.

      John Allen Muhammad was an expert marksman with a $2000 rifle and a car customized into a sniper nest. If we can make *those* the minimum requirements to "succeed" as a mass killer -- and it's worth noting that Tim Kretschmer was far more "successful" than Muhammad, in spite of his inferior equipment and skills -- then the incidence of kids shooting up their schools would drop to near zero.

      I realize that your position is that the better approach is simply to take all guns away from citizens, but that's simply impossible, and it would be wrong even if it were possible. Compared to the number of situations in which law-abiding citizens successfully defend themselves with firearms (which even the Brady Campaign grudgingly estimates at 100,000 per year), not to mention the vast recreational uses and the even more important civil liberty issues, the rare firearms tragedy is an acceptable cost. It is one of the ways in which the tree of liberty is watered by the blood of patriots.

      Given that removing the guns is neither practical nor moral, the question is: What can we do to reduce the death toll of innocents?

      The answer is: Encourage law-abiding, rational citizens to be armed. There's significant statistical evidence of the effectiveness of this approach, at least in the US. Numerous studies have documented the decrease in violent crime in US states that liberalize the issuance of concealed carry permits, even when the numbers are controlled against the nationwide decline in violence and relevant socio-economic factors. I can provide citations, if you like.

      I don't argue this idly, by the way. I carry a 9mm handgun and 27 rounds of ammunition nearly everywhere I go. I don't expect ever to use it. I *hope* never to use it. But I do my part to ensure that in my community there is always a firearm available and in the hands of a competent, calm individual.

      Well, gee, I wonder whether in a discussion about the regulation of a killing tool, events where that killing tool is the only common factor might be important or enlightening. Hmmm...

      So stop with the vague implication and explain how it is enlightening. Start with explaining how it helps us understand the proper regulation of automobiles.

      One more comment, this time at the meta-discussion level: I find it fascinating how difficult it is to find an anti-gun person who is capable of debating rationally, of stating their arguments forthrightly without the use of innuendo, sarcasm, derision or ridicule. Nor do those taking anti-gun positions ever seem to want to focus on facts, statistics, data or the results of peer-reviewed studies.

      Do yourself a favor if you want to continue this discussion, and raise the level of your discourse.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    202. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have evidence for this claim? By all accounts I've read, it's becoming gradually *harder* to obtain guns in Europe.

      EU expansion into countries that have recently had a civil war, meaning there's no longer a customs border. (It'll take a few years to de-gun the culture in those countries, but the EU has a pretty good record in that regard.)

      Fairness has nothing to do with it. Let me explain this as simply as I can:

      No, it's all about trying to draw as small a box as possible around evidence against you and as large a box as possible around evidence you wish to use. So, another shooter is "ruled inadmissable" because of the tactics the gunman employed, but later in your post automobile accidents are considered relevant despite not involving guns, schools, or resistance. Frankly, you might as well have said "I'm sorry, but that shooter wasn't wearing brown socks; the discussion is only about shooters wearing brown socks".
      I notice, meanwhile, you have completely deleted the US Army base example, that showed that a nutter with a gun is not deterred by there being armed people in the neighborhood, nor can they prevent the deaths of victims, nor does the shooter necessarily kill himself. (5 victims dead; shooter still alive.)

      Given that removing the guns is neither practical nor moral,

      Neither of which are given -- non-US countries manage it pretty darn well (even with the temporary issue of guns from the eastern EU) and have orders of magnitude fewer gun crimes as a result.

      I don't argue this idly, by the way. I carry a 9mm handgun and 27 rounds of ammunition nearly everywhere I go. I don't expect ever to use it. I *hope* never to use it. But I do my part to ensure that in my community there is always a firearm available and in the hands of a competent, calm individual.

      So you believe that routinely carrying equipment to kill 27 people into, say, a shopping mall is a civil thing to do, and are prepared to use it at any moment. Speaking as an ordinary unarmed civilian, you are just the sort of nutter I would not want to have a gun!

      One more comment, this time at the meta-discussion level: I find it fascinating how difficult it is to find an anti-gun person who is capable of debating rationally, of stating their arguments forthrightly without the use of innuendo, sarcasm, derision or ridicule.

      I hear the Flat Earth Society have a similar complaint about round-earth proponents always resorting to sarcasm and derision too.

      Do yourself a favor if you want to continue this discussion, and raise the level of your discourse.

      It's already over your head; I don't want you to have to jump too high.

    203. Re:Haven't these people learned? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I notice, meanwhile, you have completely deleted the US Army base example, that showed that a nutter with a gun is not deterred by there being armed people in the neighborhood, nor can they prevent the deaths of victims, nor does the shooter necessarily kill himself. (5 victims dead; shooter still alive.)

      That was an oversight on my part, sorry.

      That example actually bolsters my argument. As a former military policeman, I can tell you that military bases, and particularly clinics on military bases, are large gun-free zones. Yes, there are many guns present, but except for the arms carried by the MPs or, in this case, armed patrols heading out or returning, they're all locked up in armories.

      So you've just cited another example of how dangerous gun-free zones are, and why nutters exploit them to kill unarmed people. This particular nutter chose to do it in the one location on base furthest from any armed response.

      Meanwhile, I notice that YOU have dropped the DC sniper example. Why?

      Given that removing the guns is neither practical nor moral,

      Neither of which are given -- non-US countries manage it pretty darn well (even with the temporary issue of guns from the eastern EU) and have orders of magnitude fewer gun crimes as a result.

      I'll take the moral part first.

      The US has more knife crimes than most nations have violent crimes total. The high rate of violence in the US is a result of a violent culture, not the presence of guns. Given the violent culture, it's immoral to refuse citizens the opportunity to carry defensive tools.

      Between 100,000 and two million US citizens per year (depending on the source of the estimates) defend themselves with firearms. Around 95% of those defensive incidents don't involve a single shot being fired; merely presenting the weapon is nearly always sufficient to end the encounter.

      As for the practical part... the US population owns over 100 million firearms, only about 10% of them listed on any registry. Even if the constitution were amended to allow banning, and all firearms were banned it would be impossible to round those weapons up. Most police and military forces would actively refuse to try, both because the individual members consider it wrong and because they know they'd face armed resistance.

      But none of that will happen. At present, polls show that support for individual firearms ownership is the highest it's been in 60 years. Several states are on the verge of passing legislation similar to Utah's, specifically authorizing concealed carry on university campuses, to prevent another VA Tech. Only two states still deny their citizens any way to legally carry a firearm, and both are close to changing their laws. The reason they're doing it is because the statistical evidence is indisputable: violence decreases when law-abiding people are armed.

      So you believe that routinely carrying equipment to kill 27 people into, say, a shopping mall is a civil thing to do, and are prepared to use it at any moment.

      Absolutely. Since you discount statistical evidence as to the positive effects of my behavior, how about an anecdote?

      Not far from my home is a shopping mall where five people were killed by a gunman in 2007. He was stopped by an off-duty police officer who happened to be present, and armed, or it would have been worse.

      A friend of mine was there at the mall that evening, eating at a restaurant with his family. He and his wife were both armed. When they heard the shots, they quickly spoke with the restaurant manager and got all the other patrons herded into a back room, while this friend and his wife got out their weapons and took up defensive positions covering the entrances.

      The gunman never chose to enter that restaurant, so my friend and his wife didn't have to shoot him.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    204. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      So you admit that you believe in a massive conspiracy to attach deaths to Stalin's name unfairly. That's all anyone needs to know about you. There's no argument that can be presented to you to challenge your religious beliefs in this matter.

      Huh? This is how propaganda is always done -- by taking the truth, selecting the worst (or best) parts, then adding lies that look consistent yet distort the facts to fit the politicians' agenda. It would be surprising if there was no such distortions attempted with a target as convenient as Stalin.

      "Insisted in the face of all presented evidence" would be more correct than "demonstrated".

      What evidence? Even best Americans "historians" admit that they had to resort to guesswork and unreliable/fictional sources when they estimated their "numbers of Stalin's victims" in 50's-80's. On top of that inclusions of famine deaths (something that never was attributed to any other politicians' death count) shows how it was obviously done with intentions other than legitimate research. When NKVD/KGB archives became available, the actual evidence was found for up to two millions of deaths -- including those caused by increased mortality in forced exiles/relocation. For any honest historian that would be the end of controversy.

      I'm not the one excusing tens of millions of deaths that Stalin could have directly prevented

      Any evidence to back that claim? Other than "A teacher told me so".

      had he the slightest inclination to do so because they don't fit into my very narrow and self-serving definition of genocide.

      I have never mentioned anything about fitting or not fitting the definition of genocide. That's your strawman.

      And please do work on your reading comprehension skills. Twice now I've said that Stalin wasn't necessarily worse than Hitler, only that he killed more people. It's a subtle distinction, I know, but do try to comprehend it.

      I have can read your words just fine. I merely reject your point of view that any other kind of mass murder is "better" than genocide. This has very little to do with Stalin, as evidence shows that by your definition he was a red-blooded American hero kind of mass murderer.

      You are the only person in the world who believes the Holocaust was anywhere near the scale of 70 million deaths.

      WWII was, not Holocaust. I don't see how Hitler can be accused of deaths in Holocaust but absolved of WWII deaths -- both were held under his orders, to implement his party's policy. Obviously I only included deaths in parts of WWII where Germany participated as the main aggressor.

      You also may well be the only person in the world who does not understand the difference between the deaths of soldiers and the intentional killing of noncombatants.

      There is (some) difference when applied to defending a country from an aggressor. There is none when you are an aggressor invading another country -- both kinds of victims are innocent people that aggressor is killing to advance his political goals. However just to humor you (as I mentioned, a sick fuck that you are), about FORTY MILLIONS of those seventy millions are civilian war victims, not counting six millions of Jews killed in Holocaust on top of those forty.

      Thankfully for all of us, you were not present at the signing of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

      Last time I checked, Geneva Convention is about treatment of prisoners of war, not about what is or isn't a despicable act of mass murder.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    205. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Guido+del+Confuso · · Score: 1

      So are you a Holodomor denier, then? It either never happened, or ten million very real deaths are directly attributable to Soviet corruption and apathy in the best case. In the worst case, it is outright genocide. Either way, I don't see how you can excuse Stalin of these deaths and yet attribute the sum total of WWII casualties to Hitler. It's a double standard.

      I have can read your words just fine. I merely reject your point of view that any other kind of mass murder is "better" than genocide.

      Casualties of war aren't mass premeditated murder based on ethnicity. Plain and simple. You can try to redefine language to suit your agenda, but I'm not going to let your Newspeak go unchallenged.

      I don't see how Hitler can be accused of deaths in Holocaust but absolved of WWII deaths -- both were held under his orders, to implement his party's policy.

      Nobody is excusing German aggression and the deaths it caused. But again, it is one thing to kill on the battlefield against armed combatants, and quite another to inflict mass homicide on an unarmed and mostly unaware populace. Neither may be "good", but one of them is a war crime and one is not. Can you at least acknowledge this, whether or not you believe it should be the case?

      (as I mentioned, a sick fuck that you are)

      If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. And if the law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.

      Last time I checked, Geneva Convention is about treatment of prisoners of war, not about what is or isn't a despicable act of mass murder.

      Read up. The Fourth Geneva Convention sets guidelines for treatment of civilians during wartime. In other words, it defines a distinction between soldiers and civilians, and makes the intentional killing of civilians a crime, but not--and this is my point--the intentional killing of combatants, or even the inadvertent death of civilians due to collateral damage. Thankfully, the particular beliefs of Alex Belits neither reflect nor influence international law. While you're reading, you may also be interested in the Genocide Convention, which explicitly defines the crime of genocide (and again, distinguishes it from deaths caused by military action).

    206. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That example actually bolsters my argument. As a former military policeman, I can tell you that military bases, and particularly clinics on military bases, are large gun-free zones. Yes, there are many guns present, but except for the arms carried by the MPs or, in this case, armed patrols heading out or returning, they're all locked up in armories.

      So you've just cited another example of how dangerous gun-free zones are, and why nutters exploit them to kill unarmed people. This particular nutter chose to do it in the one location on base furthest from any armed response.

      No, I've just shown you that even in an environment with plenty of guns (unless you think it's just the smart uniforms keeping the Iraqi insurgents outside the doors), a gunman intent on killing people can still neutralise the presence of those guns -- you can always find a gun-free sub-location in any environment. Heck, you were keen on giving guns to teachers, ensuring you have a lone gunman in every class of 30 unarmed juveniles waiting to be shot.

      Meanwhile, I notice that YOU have dropped the DC sniper example. Why?

      Not at all -- I have rebutted your silly claim that somehow it doesn't count. I think it is entirely relevant and yet another example of how giving guns to fat slobby Americans does not prevent other Americans from shooting them. The shooter can simply adapt his tactics to gain an advantage.

      The US has more knife crimes than most nations have violent crimes total. The high rate of violence in the US is a result of a violent culture, not the presence of guns. Given the violent culture, it's immoral to refuse citizens the opportunity to carry defensive tools.

      Circular argument. The violent culture is largely a result of the perceived "right" to carry violent weaponry -- the "I might need to use violence at any moment, to defend myself against that person with a violent weapon, so therefore I must be allowed to carry a violent weapon" is at the heart of the US's problems with violence. It's youth gang culture spread into mainstream society. You think the solution in an arms race is for everybody (including the criminals) to race a bit faster. Meanwhile, Europe, where there is no "right to carry a gun", results in a culture where people, actually including most gang members, think "Why the hell would I want to carry a gun? I'm never going to use it, and it's a bloody dangerous thing to have around the house." So much so that the UK police federation has regularly voted that they do not want every officer to carry a gun -- and they're the ones that have to deal with offenders all the time.

      Between 100,000 and two million US citizens per year (depending on the source of the estimates) defend themselves with firearms. Around 95% of those defensive incidents don't involve a single shot being fired; merely presenting the weapon is nearly always sufficient to end the encounter.

      Meanwhile, the equivalent incidents in Europe do not even require the drawing of a gun, as neither party is carrying one. A bit of posturing occurs during an altercation, with the biggest risk being a punch on the nose, defuses because actually people don't like getting into fights, and as no weapon is drawn it doesn't appear in the stats.

      Absolutely. Since you discount statistical evidence as to the positive effects of my behavior, how about an anecdote? Not far from my home is a shopping mall where five people were killed by a gunman in 2007. He was stopped by an off-duty police officer who happened to be present, and armed, or it would have been worse.

      Would have been a damn sight better if the criminal did not have a gun -- as is the case with most offenders in Europe (a very small proportion have guns) but not in the US (where practically everyone intent on committing any crime carries).

      Because only nutters want to make

    207. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Initially they didn't know, but by the mid-war I'm pretty sure it was obvious they weren't going to Palestine and there was no return from the "relocation camps". By that time the western governments had received plenty of reports of what was going inside the camps but chose to ignore/not to believe.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    208. Re:Haven't these people learned? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0

      So are you a Holodomor denier, then? It either never happened,

      Famine happened. At worst, government reacted in a less than competent manner.

      or ten million very real deaths are directly attributable to Soviet corruption and apathy in the best case.

      Fortunately for the rest of mankind, your insistence has no effect on reality.

      In the worst case, it is outright genocide.

      There was no evidence of any policy targeting Ukrainians (or any other specific ethnicity) -- regions of Russia that suffered from the same disaster were just as affected. Neither there was any possible reason for anything directed against Ukrainians. The whole thing is ridiculous, and no one would ever discuss it if not American propaganda workers tirelessly reiterating this. Hell, "Ukrainian nationalists" themselves wouldn't claim that it was a genocide if not American propaganda creating such a convenient fiction for them.

      Either way, I don't see how you can excuse Stalin of these deaths and yet attribute the sum total of WWII casualties to Hitler. It's a double standard.

      Stalin was guilty of many things, but neither genocide nor intentionally starting wars of conquest at mind-boggling scale are among them.

      Casualties of war aren't mass premeditated murder based on ethnicity. Plain and simple. You can try to redefine language to suit your agenda, but I'm not going to let your Newspeak go unchallenged.

      And casualties of aggressive war are mass premeditated murder based on aggressor being a total monster. For fuck sake, I am Jewish, generations of my family suffered after being selected for discrimination, violence and death based on their ethnicity, I have more reasons than anyone else to be specifically against genocide and racism. And yet I admit that when mass murder is concerned, it does not matter if it is accompanied with racism or any other rhetoric -- actions at that scale speak louder than any words.

      Nobody is excusing German aggression and the deaths it caused. But again, it is one thing to kill on the battlefield against armed combatants, and quite another to inflict mass homicide on an unarmed and mostly unaware populace. Neither may be "good", but one of them is a war crime and one is not. Can you at least acknowledge this, whether or not you believe it should be the case?

      This is only true for DEFENDING a country -- military has no choice but to fight against the invaders. Aggressor has to actively choose to attack, so killing soldiers and civilians is both his fault.

      Of course, considering that US wages aggressive wars like there is no tomorrow, American propaganda workers had to instill this kind of perverse ethics in Americans.

      If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. And if the law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.

      Was that supposed to be some kind of a witty retort? I merely explained how I evaluate this kind of ethics, lest someone will think that I accept your premise as anything other than complete lunacy.

      Read up. The Fourth Geneva Convention sets guidelines for treatment of civilians during wartime. In other words, it defines a distinction between soldiers and civilians, and makes the intentional killing of civilians a crime, but not--and this is my point--the intentional killing of combatants, or even the inadvertent death of civilians due to collateral damage. Thankfully, the particular beliefs of Alex Belits neither reflect nor influence international law. While you're reading, you may also be interested in the Genocide Convention, which explicitly defines the crime of genocide (and again, distinguishes it from deaths caused by military action).

      Waging a war of aggression is a war crime all by itself. You don't have to specifically target

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  3. Germany is turning into a fucking preschool by FlickieStrife · · Score: 1

    What the hell,now when people play music too loud, do they have to fucking walk around with their index fingers on their lips. Dont get me wrong, it is a tragedy about the shooting, but this is going a little too far.

    1. Re:Germany is turning into a fucking preschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our government is just totally insane. Crazy people with a turd instead of a brain.
      It's almost as bad as in Britain or the US.

    2. Re:Germany is turning into a fucking preschool by FlickieStrife · · Score: 1

      I agree, while i haven't been to Germany, i can vouch that the US legal system is fucked

    3. Re:Germany is turning into a fucking preschool by RsG · · Score: 2, Informative

      True, but while I personally am not American, I can vouch that their system is better at avoiding censorship.

      Look at all the idiot laws that Jack Thompson and his fellow crusading geriatrics tried to get passed. All of them, to the last, got struck down by the courts, or never made it out of the state legislature. That is an example of the system working as it should - the courts protect the rights that the lawmakers selectively ignore.

      In Germany, those same sorts of restrictions have been, and continue to be, passed into law. There has been no restrictions upon the ability of the lawmakers to take away the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry.

      I'd say the German legal system is fucked. The American one is also fucked, but batting down censorship is perhaps one of the few things it gets right. Mind you, the moment the censors in the US try to ban sex instead of violence, the whole thing falls apart.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:Germany is turning into a fucking preschool by hey! · · Score: 1

      No, they're becoming Scandinavians. That's what they were in the Bronze age, anyway. They're just taking an extra century or so to sublimate that barbarian raider energy into obsessive-compulsive social democracy.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Germany is turning into a fucking preschool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I disagree, the German court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has continuously protected the rights and freedoms of the German citizens. Examples include rulings against free access of police on provider logs (German) and rulings against electronic voting(German).

      At the moment this is whole thing is just a media stunt, if a law really gets passed I am optimistic it will get shot down by the court.

  4. From the article... by chris098 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The teenager shot many of his victims in the head with his father's legally registered pistol.

    This shows the gun registration laws work! If only we made it illegal to shoot people in the first place, all our problems would be solved. Oh wait...

    1. Re:From the article... by Zapotek · · Score: 1

      I'm impressed that he got so many headshot...That's skill... No, I'm not trolling, I just don't see why I should post a serious response to a stupid article.

    2. Re:From the article... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Thing is, you know WHY he was so accurate? Not because of paintball, that IS moronic. It's because his father had 16 legally registered pistols and obviously trained him to shoot...

      But NOOOOO... guns can be used for the "sport" of target shooting, so anyone should be able to buy them! You know, I really wanted to try out the sport of "target hand grenade tossing" - why won't my repressive government let me buy any?

    3. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. Are you British? Sounds like it. People like you are the reason I'm so fucking ashamed of my country.

    4. Re:From the article... by anonymousmeatbag · · Score: 0

      Having 16 legally registered pistols at home is clearly a sign of madness or an need to open an museum. Having a son that shoot 15 people dead clearly shows that it is something that flows trough the bloodlines.

      The bottom line is the paintball is going to be outlawed! It is like banning the bicycles because people die in airplane crashes!

      It takes one madman to make a tragedy, and more than a one to pass the stupid law.

    5. Re:From the article... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Having 16 legally registered pistols at home is clearly a sign of madness or an need to open an museum

      Not necessarily. When I was growing up (in the UK), I shot a few times at a privately-owned range. They had a selection of weapons that weren't available in my school range (we only had a few kinds of target rifle, some L98s and a pair of LSWs, the last two couldn't be fired in the school range because they could shoot through the wall at the end). The private range was owned by a single individual and all of the weapons there (black powder pistols, carbine rifles, shotguns, and so on) were all registered to the owner.

      I don't know if this is the case here, but someone who runs a range may well own a large number of guns for their students / customers to use.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry by RsG · · Score: 5, Funny

    But I will say I find this entirely in keeping with the policy of the German government. They have similarly ridiculous laws in place regarding video games and other entertainment, so while this new one seems utterly idiotic, it is at least a logical extension of what they've already done.

    At this rate, they'll be banning soccer next. Wouldn't want those hooligans "lowering the threshold for violent acts", now, would we?

    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    1. Re:I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry by ipX · · Score: 1

      What is this threshold anyway? Isn't it healthier to act out your aggression by playing a _game_ rather than say... shooting up your school? What is the connection between paintball and this incident, it's not at all clear from TFA.

    2. Re:I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I think they will ban tag and any game where someone is being chased around. Might give children the wrong impression that it's okay to chase someone with a gun.

    3. Re:I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      creimer, you fat syphilitic shitbeard! How's your cholesterol, fatty?

    4. Re:I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football (soccer) doesn't cause violence. The German government should try banning the alcohol consumed at sporting events.

    5. Re:I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      They've actually been debating whether or not to ban so-called "killer games" (pretty much any FPS qualifies...) for a while now. Same thing, a few dumbass politicians assume that the kids who go around shooting classmates or passers by probably used 'em for weapons training...

      This is the sort of thing that makes me want to move away from Germany - I could deal with all the holocaust aftermath pseudo-guilt, but this kind of incredible stupidity is just too much..

  6. AHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope this goes thru.

    FOR LULZ.

  7. Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is sure to succeed, just like banning the swastika has completely removed any trace of right-wing hate groups in Germany.

    1. Re:Ah, yes. by RsG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The de-Nazification laws at least made some sense. If your former government really was that monstrous, you too would likely want to bury all traces of it. Doesn't mean they actually work, merely that they are rooted in something understandable.

      The laws in Germany banning or censoring anything remotely violent make no sense whatsoever. They've done nothing up until this point to prevent real life violence, like the shooting TFA mentions. They do not provide more than the illusion of safety, and I doubt anyone under the age of 40 buys into that illusion.

      All they've done is stifle the enjoyment of the citizenry in order to make the foolish and reactionary idiots feel safer.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Ah, yes. by sando101x · · Score: 1

      Can't have a discussion without some sort of pop culture reference:

      German Tour Guide: You vill find more on Germany's contributions to ze arts in ze pamphlets ve have provided.

      Brian : Yeah, about your pamphlet... uh, I'm not seeing anything about German history between 1939 and 1945. There's just a big gap.

      Tour guide: Everyone vas on vacation. On your left is Munich's first city hall, erected in 15...

      Brian : Wait, what are you talking about? Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and...

      Tour Guide: We were invited. Punch vas served. Check vit Poland.

      Brian : You can't just ignore those years. Thomas Mann fled to America because of Nazism's stranglehold on Germany.

      Tour guide: Nope, nope. He left to manage a Dairy Queen.

      Brian : A Dairy Queen? That's preposterous.

      Tour guide: I vill hear no more insinuations about the German people. Nothing bad happened. Sie werden sich hinsetzen. Sie werden ruhig sein. Sie werden nicht beleidigen Deutschland. You will sit down. You will shut up. You will not insult Germany. (Throws his hand up in a Hitler salute.)

    3. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do not provide more than the illusion of safety, and I doubt anyone under the age of 40 buys into that illusion.

      yes, because people under 40 are so enlightened...especially today's youth...
      boy, I'm more afraid of idiots like you.

    4. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas people over 40 are? Riiight.

      Somebody mod this idiot into oblivion please.

    5. Re:Ah, yes. by RsG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know this is a troll, and I shouldn't feed it. But what the hell.

      I've never met anyone under 40 who believed that banning or regulating violent entertainment would reduce real life violence. And they're quite correct to be sceptical - all the actual evidence is on their side.

      Everyone who supports laws like these is generally 50+. Think of folks like Jack Thompson. They actually do believe that trying to keep young people from pretending to shoot one another will curb real life violence.

      Now, there are plenty of sensible older folks who know this is BS. They just aren't a large or vocal enough group to drown out their delusional peers.

      So, it's really a case of the old and reactionary crowd trying to make themselves feel safe. These laws are the illusion of safety, tailored to cater to the aged and deluded.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    6. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pop culture you say?
      I'd call that hate culture.

      (hate against Germans, not from Germans, if you don't get it)

    7. Re:Ah, yes. by jcnnghm · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Right wing hate group, you aren't referring to the Nazi's are you? You do know that Nazi stood for Nationalsozialismus, officially National Socialism. From the 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party:

      7. We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

      10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

      11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

      12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

      13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

      14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

      15. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

      16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

      17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

      18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.

      20. In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.

      21. The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.

      None of those are "right-wing" points. You'll notice that all three of the great mass-murderers in the 20th century, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, leaned far to the left.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    8. Re:Ah, yes. by ishobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 25 points consisted of a mixture of exaggerated nationalistic demands, corruptions of socialist ideas, and racist and anti-Semitic doctrines. That is not what I would call ideas of the far left, and explains why you did not reprint all the points. This was a great propaganda campaign. I highly recommend learning something of this history rather than quote mining.

      --
      Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
    9. Re:Ah, yes. by MPAB · · Score: 0

      MOD INSIGHTFUL AND INFORMATIVE

      There's a part that's un-leftist, though: The items which state that a citizen must WORK for a living.

    10. Re:Ah, yes. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Whatever revisionist history you got this from seems to omitted the Night of the Long Knives.

    11. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh....

      Another idiot who can't see the difference between socialism and Stalinism and Nazism. Yes - in NAME they pretended to have something to do with socialism, but in reality it had nothing to do with anything even remotely resembling socialism.

      Just for a reminder. The Nazi's really hated everyone that was a socialist in the real sense. Those people where hunted even more then they hunt Jews and other ethnic groups. They where tortured and killed if they where discovered. In this sense Nazism was exactly the opposite of socialism. They just used that name to get acceptance from the public. At the time the public realized what national "socialism" really meant it was to late. At that time it was only nationalism without a shred of socialism - hence the name "nazi" (in a broad way translated as "nation")..

      Yes - I know the above rules where there, but they only where there to fool the people. They made those rules, but twisted the interpretation so they could use this rules just to archive just the opposite from what they looked like.

      So please don't try to put left wing people in the same corner as nazi's. That's not only completely wrong, but also insulting for those that have really good intentions...

    12. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those are "right-wing" points. You'll notice that all three of the great mass-murderers in the 20th century, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, leaned far to the left.

      That's because reality has a left-leaning bias.

    13. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: left/right wing is something you can't really define to the point, there are some international differences as well.

      Nevertheless I have to strongly disagree. FYI: I am a german and do know quite a lot about our history.

      To begin with:
      * You are mixing up right wing with liberalism.
      * Regarding the nationalization of trusts etc.
      What they did nationalize were the properties of Jews, Sinti and Romanies and other minorities.
      * The rest of the economy was well of, companies got huge deals and slave labor helped a lot to increase their profits. They weren't nationalized, they made good money.
      * There are some points missing on your list, eg establishing a social hierarchy and propagating the believe that there was some kind of arian uebermensch. This (social hierarchy) is a typical right wing position, going back to the french revolution where the terms left/right wing were coined.

      Of course there are some points in there that you could isolate to make it look like a left wing ideology. But if you look at the big picture the NSDAP was a right-wing party that used some popular ideas from the socialists/communists for their propaganda. If you'd take a list of things that the Nazis actually did most of your left wing points would vanish.

    14. Re:Ah, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please note that even today extremism leaning to the right or left is very similar. Try to compare the statements about for instance globalization.

      In the beginning of Nationalsozialismus, there was even a sympathy for communism in Russia (as you pointed out, there were many similarities concerning goals). Later this changed to total hatred of course.

      However, there are also "right-wing points". Hitler was pushed by the industrial elite. This is not "leaning far to the left". And the nationalism in general is a "right wing" thing.

    15. Re:Ah, yes. by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Hitler just tacked himself, and his aims, onto this party. There were dozens like it at that time in Germany. He joined it, worked his way to the top, and reoriented it, killing anyone in the party who disagreed.

    16. Re:Ah, yes. by cycoj · · Score: 1

      you're kidding right?! I suggest you pick up a history book. Look at the main people backing Mussolini and Hitler, or the ones profiting from them being in power. It was reach capitalists. Krupp, Siemens, IG Farben ... All private companies btw.

    17. Re:Ah, yes. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Ummm, I don't know that a translation to English of the original documents counts as "revisionist." Head over to Wikipeida and have a look if you like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program. Also he's quite correct about the Nazi party. The proper title was the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Nationalsozialistische is a compound word, which German is very fond of, the components are national and sozialistische (translates to socialist). Deutsche is German for, well, German (the country is locally called Deutschland). Arbeiterpartei is again a compound word arbeiter and partei. Arbeiter means worker, you might remember the slogan on concentration camps "Arbeit macht frei" which means work will set you free. Partei means party, and is pronounced similar, which is no surprise since English is also a Germanic language. That translates to the National Socialist German Worker's Party.

    18. Re:Ah, yes. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      You do realize that quoting source material is the definitive opposite of revisionist right? Or do facts make your own revisionist views a little hard to bear?

      I also don't see how the Night of the Long Knives says anything contradictory about the goals of the National Socialist German Workers Party or its broader political effects.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    19. Re:Ah, yes. by tenco · · Score: 2, Informative

      As others already pointed out, this is very nationalistic. And it puts the "benefit of all" ("the need of the many") above the individual, whereas the communist principle states "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". It's also not classless as can be deduced from the term "middle-class". You also forgot the racist and eugenics part: that these points only apply to healthy people (what's healthy is defined by the party line) with a perceived "arian ancestry" and only as long as you don't oppose the party. All others are reduced to subhumans which can be robbed for the benefit of the arian welfare state at will (and that's what happened).

    20. Re:Ah, yes. by liquiddark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this is more like banning the plus sign for its vague resemblance to a swastika.

    21. Re:Ah, yes. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Eh, that's not a very good argument. Nationalism, class, and racism/eugenics aren't inherently right wing. For example, the USSR had all three to some degree. It's generally considered to be a left wing government. To back my claim, I don't believe there's any serious question that the USSR was heavily nationalist though it portrayed the country's actions as being in support of a global movement. The class structure in the USSR was very simple with two classes, one that does the work and one that holds the power. Fundamentally, that's what most class structures are.

      Finally, the USSR has a history of singling out and mistreating other ethnic groups. For example, in the early days of the USSR the Cossacks were dealt with harshly. And of course, there's the notorious genocide of the Ukrainians in the 30's. As I understand it, identification papers for USSR citizens also included information on their ethnicity and religion. Finally, it's worth noting that the structure of the republics and of the USSR in the Eastern Bloc heavily favored the Russian Soviet Federative Republic which was by far the largest Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of the USSR and hence controlling power of the entire Soviet empire. Further, the non-Russian ethnities tended to be concentrated in the other SSRs.

    22. Re:Ah, yes. by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      You're aware that the author of that "revisionist history" was Adolph Hitler?

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    23. Re:Ah, yes. by jcnnghm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      killing anyone in the party who disagreed.

      As all great 20th century liberals did.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    24. Re:Ah, yes. by jcnnghm · · Score: 1

      You also forgot the racist and eugenics part

      The German eugenics laws actually weren't too original. They were based on laws made by the "progressive" California state government, which sterilized over 20,000 people. No matter how you slice it or dice it, the Nazi's were a far-left party.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    25. Re:Ah, yes. by tenco · · Score: 1

      For the Nazis, racism and eugenics were intertwined because they believed that superior races had the obligation to subdue and exterminate inferior races. And they defined all sorts of ethnic, political or religios groups as races. So we're not talking about some "not so original eugenics laws" but about the holocaust and the concentration camps here.

  8. What about banning... by maxter3185 · · Score: 1

    Guns? Cars? Hookers? Cigarretes? Diseases? Stupidity?

    --
    I have pictures o' your momma and sista naked
    1. Re:What about banning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...holidays in Poland and France...

    2. Re:What about banning... by mog007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Guns? Cars? Hookers? Cigarretes? Diseases? Stupidity?

      First they came for the paintballers, and I did not speak up, for I did not play paintball.

      Then they came for the hookers, and I was unable to get a date...

    3. Re:What about banning... by frehe · · Score: 1

      Then they came for the hookers, and... surprise government cockfags! I still managed to get a date, thanks to the wonders of high quality Japanese made real size dolls!

  9. Banning of 'gun look alikes' by nurb432 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    From what i understand some places in Europe already ban anything that even looks like a gun, such as replicas.

    Idiots.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Banning of 'gun look alikes' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only realistic replicas are banned. The reason is obvious. When cops are pondering shooting at you, they can tell if your gun is a toy easily. Even if you were using a replica they would have no reason to believe it was.

      "H3 sh0uld4 t4k3n 4 r34l 700L"
      nurb432 19xx-2009

    2. Re:Banning of 'gun look alikes' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Only realistic replicas are banned. The reason is obvious. When cops are pondering shooting at you, they can tell if your gun is a toy easily. Even if you were using a replica they would have no reason to believe it was.

      If the nut holding up the bank is using a realistic-looking gun, kill him. Society becomes a better place whether the gun was actually real or not.

    3. Re:Banning of 'gun look alikes' by DirtyCanuck · · Score: 1

      I don't think that they are idiots for banning replicas. Now, the talk of banning pointed knives is pushing it though.

      Ban gun, Knife Murders go up.
      Ban knives, screwdriver murders go up.
      Ban screwdrivers, rock bashing murders go up.

      If prison can teach us anything, If somebody wants somebody else dead, their is very little one can do to prevent it.

      I think however, if the kid in question had maybe needed to unlock the case and plan ahead it might have curbed his lust. I grew up with 200 guns in my house (Yea I know, Canadian gun laws are a joke, eh?). From a mental point of view, picking up a gun, holding it smelling it, caressing it, give you much more passion then staring at it through a glass case or knowing it's there.

      Ever pick up a proper sword, axe or knife and think "Damn if I was pissed off enough this could do some damage" That same feel applies when you are holding a gun rather then looking at it. IMHO.

  10. People are inherently violent by MakinBacon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does the German government actually think that people learn violence from games? Violence is part of human instinct. We have evolved so that we have a tendency to hurt other people. No amount of censorship is going to fix that.

    1. Re:People are inherently violent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well i for one am set on changing that instinct. or repressing it. or what have you. i for one would not like to become a serial murderer or a killer of even one other human being. hell i dont even kill my own meat that i consume. anyway, the evolution will hopefully continue away from violence and hurting others. however paintball practitioners are working TOWARDS the goal of nonviolence by replacing real gun play with fake gun play- so there the germans are really making a bad mistake.
      -rw

    2. Re:People are inherently violent by Xeth · · Score: 1

      I agree that these games should not be banned, but you're still committing what I like to call the fallacy of simple causes. Just because there is a known cause for a problem, that doesn't mean that other things can't also contribute to it. Humans may be inherently violent, but excessive cultural glorification of it (which is locked in a vicious demand-produce cycle) can certainly add to those natural tendencies.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    3. Re:People are inherently violent by MakinBacon · · Score: 1

      What about animals? They have a tendency to kill each other (and not just for food, either). Do they play paintball and video games?

    4. Re:People are inherently violent by Xeth · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what I said. Just because something (A) is caused by something else (B) does not mean that A cannot also be caused by C.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    5. Re:People are inherently violent by RsG · · Score: 1

      I've seen the "cultural glorification" argument before. I'm afraid it doesn't hold up very well.

      Find me a culture that does not glorify violence, in entertainment, or values, or what parts of history are focused upon. You likely can't. Even "peaceful" countries generally place a great deal of importance upon their own military history. They glorify whatever wars they feel they fought justly.

      The human instinct toward violence is universal. The outlets vary.

      Conversely, if you look at the other end of things, and focus on real life violence instead of cultural depictions of it, you'll generally find it's prompted by real or imagined motives. People murder one another because they feel it just, because they have something to gain, because there is something wrong, or damaged, with them, or some combination of the above.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    6. Re:People are inherently violent by Xeth · · Score: 1

      Then why are there differences in murder rates across various countries? I doubt it's related to the means to kill; controlling for abundance of weaponry still leaves substantial variation. That leaves motive. While you could construct an explanation regarding ancillary causes generating more reasons for murder, I feel a cultural (or perhaps genetic, though heritable mental traits are generally verboten for discussion) explanation is much more plausible.

      I'd might need to revise this thesis if violence were compared across countries when controlled against poverty.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    7. Re:People are inherently violent by RsG · · Score: 1

      That leaves motive.

      More or less my exact point.

      Cultural glorification of violence is not a motive. Greed, hate, revenge, or any number of other causes, are another matter.

      Why do some countries have a higher murder rate? You could point to a higher disparity of wealth, a higher incarceration rate, or an absence of adequate law enforcement. Any one of which would serve as a better explanation than "cultural glorification of violence", not least of which because you can draw a connection between the act of violence and the circumstances I just listed that might motivate it.

      That's not to say culture isn't a factor, but it is to say that as factors go, it's way down the list. The simplest explanation that accounts for all the evidence is usually the right one.

      I'd say that even in a utopia wherein such injustices are uncommon, you'd still have violence, simply because of human nature. The varying rates of violence we see in the world today are an intersection of that violent nature with very real, practical motives to use it - in some places, people have more reasons (or excuses) to resort to violence than in others.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    8. Re:People are inherently violent by tenco · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I can't remember the last time I violated a human being. And I don't have alzheimer's disease or some other sort of dementia.

    9. Re:People are inherently violent by khallow · · Score: 1

      What does paintball have to do with glorification of violence? As I see it, sure, paintball could be part of some violence glorification ritual, but it usually isn't. Further, it has many benefits such as physical exercise, hand/eye coordination training, and figuring out how to reduce your odds of dying when someone shoots at you with real bullets.

    10. Re:People are inherently violent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not evolving that way. It's very hard to undo thousands of years of evolutionary drive. While it's ideal because we need it, being pacifist runs deeply counter to several biological imperatives in the human animal. You need to find outlets for it because it's NOT going away. Directing and channeling it will accomplish what you seek- not eradicating it. Because you can't and won't for many, many, many generations to come.

  11. Backward Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was 15 or so, I wanted to play paintball. My parents were initially resistant to the idea. They thought it was militant and would be a poor influence on me. I learned quickly that it's damned well easy to get shot and the welts those things leave don't let the memory fade. Rather than thinking, "Hey self, let's go join the army and shoot people for real," I thought "If those were real bullets, I'd be dead inside of 5 minutes along with all of my friends."

    So, yes, I did learn a thing or two about taking down mansized targets with horribly inaccurate, slow moving projectiles with no ability to penetrate cover. What I also learned was that I am not invincible, I play by the same rules as everyone else, and I want to be nowhere near real bullets fired in anger.

    1. Re:Backward Thinking by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had a similar experience with Airsoft(plastic BB guns essentially)when I was about 17. I also realized how much proper instruction in gun safety was after several of my friends shot themselves accidentally. I had been taught about pistols and rifles as I grew up, and my father took me to the shooting range a few times over the years, so I had the safety training they didnt get. If they had decided to pick up and play with a real gun they found, they could have seriously injured themselves.

      Back on topic, I do think to a degree, these war games can be an encouragement for using violence to work out your frustration. I continue play airsoft regularly, with about a dozen people for years now. Inevitably someone will start to take things too seriously, so we have rules in place where we can send them off to cool down. That being said, I think banning it because some might have obvious mental instabilities that would make this lead them to shoot people with real guns is absurd. Will they ban toy swords and water guns next?

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    2. Re:Backward Thinking by Walpurgiss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Northern Illinois University banned NERF guns after the school shooting on Valentines day last year, much to the dismay of our local Zombies vs Humans crowd.

      Everyone ended up having to just throw socks if I remember right from their protest flyers.

    3. Re:Backward Thinking by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      What I also learned was that I am not invincible, I play by the same rules as everyone else, and I want to be nowhere near real bullets fired in anger.

      What I learned from paintball is that if I'm ever in a situation where I have to shoot a real gun at real people who have guns of their own, I'll fair better if I plan to ambush them.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Backward Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Northern Illinois University banned NERF guns after the school shooting on Valentines day last year, much to the dismay of our local Zombies vs Humans crowd.

      Everyone ended up having to just throw socks if I remember right from their protest flyers.

      And thank goodness they did! Attacks by vicious bands of roving criminals wielding NERF guns dropped by over 62%. On the downside attacks by sock lobbing hooligans increased three-fold.

    5. Re:Backward Thinking by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      I do think to a degree, these war games can be an encouragement for using violence to work out your frustration... Inevitably someone will start to take things too seriously, so we have rules in place where we can send them off to cool down. I think banning it because some might have obvious mental instabilities that would make this lead them to shoot people with real guns is absurd.

      If we accept their argument that paintballing leads to violent tendencies, what happens to all the paintballers? If they really believe their argument then it means they'll be taking the emotional release away from a crowd of people they're saying are violent killers in the making. I guess they prefer frustrated violent people to pacified violent people.

      People release their frustrations different ways, some healthy and some not. It's not harmful to others and it's not self destructive, there's far worse things. Some people deal with their problems with alcohol, and I'm sure that leads to a lot more violence then paintballing.

      So I think you're right, it does encourage "violence" (at least in those that can't separate pretend violence from real violence) but it also helps to mollify it. Sadly the people that may be influenced the most by play-acting out violence are also probably unstable enough that they need some kind of outlet. The best that can be done for them is to teach them healthy boundaries (like the cooldowns you mentioned).

    6. Re:Backward Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I served 7 years in the US Army Infantry. Once in a while, we would get one bone head out of basic that thought he was superman and invincible. Paintball was a great way to teach them otherwise. Esp on a cold morning in Germany when the balls were slightly frozen.

    7. Re:Backward Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of a incident at a paintball place where I live.

      Some squaddies were in a match against the staff of the paintball place. The army boys lost badly, as they kept hitting the dirt whenever one of the staff started running around spraying paint balls randomly.

      They had had it drummed into their minds that gunfire is a really, really good thing to avoid, and you don't get up after being sprayed with it.

      The staff didn't have this fear and took their hits with equanimity.

  12. It would the the heart of the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    boys will be boys.

    1. Re:It would the the heart of the problem by ipX · · Score: 1

      I suppose. So their logic goes something like this then: "We will crush their primal urges by banning paintball!" Brilliant.

  13. New black market! by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Funny

    Psssst! Hey man, want some splat? I'll get you freaky painted.

    2 EUR a ball, 20 for a baker's dozen.

    Just don't share a dirty gun with your friends.

  14. Mixed feelings by roystgnr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although I am naturally quite uneasy about a German government demanding such intrusive power over people's lives with the explicit purpose of shaping their very thoughts, I am pleased that at least they'll all be unarmed. The last time a German government went mad with power, their military might soon controlled most of Europe, deep into Russia, north Africa, the Atlantic... But if they no longer have any projectile weapons, next time they won't manage to conquer anyone except France!

    1. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are aware Germany has an army, right? Your post makes no sense whatsoever as a result. It's not as if the soldiers are having their guns taken away.

    2. Re:Mixed feelings by russlar · · Score: 2, Funny

      But if they no longer have any projectile weapons, next time they won't manage to conquer anyone except France!

      France surrendered preemptively after reading this.

      --
      Anybody want my mod points?
    3. Re:Mixed feelings by basementman · · Score: 1

      And Godwin's law has been indirectly fulfilled.

    4. Re:Mixed feelings by at_slashdot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I like that this was moded "insightful" and not "funny" :D

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    5. Re:Mixed feelings by Digestromath · · Score: 1

      In my new script, a idealogical lawmaker teams up with a mad scientist, and they use his time machine to travel back to Germany circa 1938 in an attempt to ban paintballing. It irreversably alters the timeline, causing Germany to surrender to France, Russia to become a Democracy promoting peacekeeper nation, England sinks into the sea, and America becomes a communist regime after a southern revolt.

    6. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are using sarcasm, and that I misunderstood you. The German army was trained while unarmed before world war two, and developed into a professional military essentially drilling with broomsticks. You don't need guns to learn to kill people.

    7. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately you are wrong, this proposed law is a victory for our weapon loby. Instead of making sure that children can't grab a gun and shoot the hell out of their class mates/teachers they prohibit playing games.

      The only projectile weapons we are not going to have shoot little color blobs. Now that will make the world a better place.

    8. Re:Mixed feelings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully agree, getting weapons sure will be a huge problem for the world's third-largest weapon systems exporter! :-P

    9. Re:Mixed feelings by MoreDruid · · Score: 1

      I hope you mean this as a joke.

      Because the last time a American government went mad with power, their military might tried to control a part of the Middle East... But if they no longer have any projectile weapons, next time they won't manage to conquer anyone except Canada!

      pointing a finger in somebody's direction is too easy... he who is innocent may cast the first stone

      --
      The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
  15. A thin veneer..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. that's all "civilization" is.

    It's law of the jungle as it always has been. Just now they usually take your money instead of the rabbit you just killed.

  16. "Trivializes violence" by Huntr · · Score: 1

    I guess that's fair, in a country that "trivializes thinking."

  17. In Other News: by dotmax · · Score: 1

    All flatware will be replaced with sporks, and, after an adjustment period, the sporks will be replaced with rubber-tipped chopsticks. Also, the ! will be replaced with the pipe|.

    1. Re:In Other News: by joocemann · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fingers will be stumped, penises removed... You know.. to prevent the rapes and the sexual harassment..

      Soon they'll find use for the banned sporks and start scooping out eyes from sockets at birth --- to prevent people from seeing things that they *might* interact with in ways that *might* have negative outcomes.

      It will only end when The Matrix is fully developed so nobody can actually be harmed.

      Ban fire, it won't save your house. Ban weed, millions don't give a shit. Ban guns, the innocent lose power to fight for their rights, criminals blow a line and move forward w/ guns like it never mattered.... Ban piracy, all your songs are now belong to soundcat.

      Ban words, people still say them. Ban religion, like that would ever work... Ban skittles, some jerkoff with a recipe will *STILL* make them and teach his kids how to do it out of spite and our human nature to do whatever we truly want to do.

      Ban meteors... Ban terrorism... Ban lies... Ban polygamy.... Ban swine flu.

      I swear, you could ban Dick Flavored Pizza and somewhere, somehow, in S. Korea, a guy will get a pizza that tastes like a dick.

      Banning paintball guns and airsoft won't bring 16 people back to life. I'm sure anyone involved wants to be noticed for caring (hence this stupid law idea)... But sometimes its ok to say 'such is life' and move on. Yes, bad things happen. Sympathize, accept, move on.

      Just don't let all that emotion force you to forget to think.

    2. Re:In Other News: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to get my hands on that Skittles recipe. Oh, and I'll take the recipe for the Dick Flavored Pizza, too, if you have it.

  18. Cowboys and Indians by Thomasje · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My brother and me and the other kids on the block played cowboys and Indians sometimes, we shot at each other with toy guns and (weak!) slingshots.
    Years later, I amused myself with computer games, including a fair number of first-person shooters. Spent many an enjoyable hour playing Descent and Quake 3. Descent with the PC hooked up to my stereo was awesome -- those fireballs on the screen looked pretty damn good, and, by God, the booming from the speakers was way cool.
    I'm 44 now and haven't killed anyone yet, but who knows, eh, what kind of violent rage was set into motion by all that mock fighting, only waiting to turn me into a murderous monster like that kid in Winnenden, Germany? OMG, I'm a ticking time bomb!

    *shakes head in disbelief*

    1. Re:Cowboys and Indians by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Just what I was thinking. My 4yo son (3yo at the time) was picking out a toy in a lucky dip (he didn't quite get the concept of the 'lucky' bit and just peered in and chose what he wanted). He chose the toy cap gun. I don't particularly remember him watching any tv shows with guns with them, and his older sisters never played any gun games, but he picked it out and knew exactly what it was for, and for the next few weeks went around 'killing' everyone and everyone until he got bored with it.

      Good thing we aren't in Germany or he'd be in jail now :)

      When I was a kid, my mum specifically never bought any toy guns of any sort. So we made them out of lego. Or paper. Or sticks.

      I think paintballing is far better than playing with imaginary guns. For one thing you don't have any "you're dead!" "no i'm not", etc. When you get hit by a paintball it leaves a mark, and it hurts. People would pretty quickly figure out that if there was a real shootout they'd get pretty dead pretty fast.

    2. Re:Cowboys and Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing, I spent a good chunk of my formative years playing Warcraft 2. It's only a matter of time before I snap and open a dimensional rift, allowing the country to be conquered by hordes of bloodthirsty, axe-wielding orcs!

    3. Re:Cowboys and Indians by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      Any clue if statisticians have collected data to show pseudo-violent* activities have about the same correlation to criminal violence as any other common activity (i.e. wearing pants)? While my example has humor value, making such a silly comparison with the data to support it would go a long way in making people laugh off these crazy laws as lunacy.

      Such a technique was used when a study argued that an increase in hospital beds increased hospital stays, an increase in chiropractors leads to an increase in demand for back surgery, etc. The counterarugment was that this logic implies that an increase in OB/GYNs leads to an increase in childbirth, which is clearly absurd.

      *I say pseudo-violent because I do not know what the numbers would be like for fighting sports like boxing- nothing against boxers but it the sport IS violent, compared to paint balling.

    4. Re:Cowboys and Indians by Aranykai · · Score: 1

      You just brought back memories for me. My mother also made a point of not allowing any kind of guns. I made guns out of lego, and then graduated to making rubber band guns out of random wood and clothes pins I found around the house. I ended up arming about half my neighborhood before my mother figured out where all the clothes pins ended up.

      Still have not shot anyone either.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    5. Re:Cowboys and Indians by jamesh · · Score: 1

      You just brought back memories for me.

      And you me :)

      My mother also made a point of not allowing any kind of guns. I made guns out of lego, and then graduated to making rubber band guns out of random wood and clothes pins I found around the house. I ended up arming about half my neighborhood before my mother figured out where all the clothes pins ended up.

      I'd forgotten all about that. My biggest rubber band gun was an 8 foot garden stake with a clothes peg up one end and a groove in the far end and a heap of rubber bands joined together. It actually performed worse than the 1 foot one i'd made earlier but it was sure cool to fire :)

      Lucky I didn't lose an eye.

    6. Re:Cowboys and Indians by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's only a matter of time before I snap and open a dimensional rift, allowing the country to be conquered by hordes of bloodthirsty, axe-wielding orcs!

      Not that that's a bad thing. After all, it's always good to increase ethnic diversity and expose us to new cultures and societies. Go for it!

  19. we should promote science by panthroman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of (correctly) complaining that "correlation != causation" or "this won't work!!", could we use examples like these to promote science education?

    Will banning paintball cause a decrease in school shootings? Did you know that's a scientifically tractable question?

    When a tragedy like this occurs, the public demands a political reaction. More education on the only known way to get at causation - the scientific method - might cause people to demand political reactions that work.

  20. What about Nerf? by Zerth · · Score: 1

    Folded sheets of notebook paper in the shape of SMGs? Or rubber bands over thumb and forefinger?

    Just holding a chicken finger in your hand in a vaguely gun-like silhouette?

    I imagine it will end in amputations...

  21. Shootings weren't by paintballing? by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 1

    Just reading the headline, I thought the case was that someone had been seriously injured or killed. That would've at least made some sense.

    This doesn't.

    --
    We are all God's parents.
    1. Re:Shootings weren't by paintballing? by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 1

      My bad for not previewing. "injured or killed by paintballs"

      --
      We are all God's parents.
  22. Next thing you know, they'll surrender to France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, though, they don't seem to be banning cars.

    How many people have been killed in Germany by cars?

  23. Carlin quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And now they're thinking about banning toys guns, and they're going to keep the fucking real ones!"

    Should they start playing real guns instead?

  24. Say it ain't so... by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    "The rationale for this is that 'paintball trivializes violence and risks lowering the threshold for committing violent acts.'"

    Oppressive laws that limit personal responsibility and undermine rational thinking trivializes society and risks lowering the threshold for legislating more inane laws that drive people to violent acts.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  25. if they outlaw paintball by ifeelswine · · Score: 1

    then only outlaws will paint balls.

  26. The reason the USA is great by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I agree, while i haven't been to Germany, i can vouch that the US legal system is fucked

    Can't be too fucked, since you have a right to say that it is. There's plenty of countries where you would get beaten up for just daring to communicate outside of your assigned channels, and would get killed for condemning the government.

    Right now, the biggest failure of the legal system is a ton of stupid laws throwing a lot of people into jail probably where fines might be appropriate. But... cash strapped states, knowing that voters will despise any tax increase, have figured out that jeez, building new prisons every year costs a lot of money. On the federal level, the only way Obama will get national health care is if he can structure it in a way that caps medicare.... because, people aren't going to want to pay that bill. Sure, politicians have historically borrowed their way out of it, but with USA debt approaching its limits, and states essentially with no credit, particularly California, New Jersey and New York, the level of government spending is going to have to be aligned to what citizens are willing to pay, and in America, its not a lot.

    --
    This is my sig.
  27. The pussification of the West by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's how it usually goes down with these situations, aside from the case where the person isn't a sociopath:

    1) Guy gets marginalized and picked on.

    2) School knows about it and does nothing.

    3) Guy gets subjected to violence.

    4) The authorities do nothing despite the basic fact that we know from common sense and scientific observation that eventually an organism will lash out in self-defense if not protected.

    5) Guy may defend himself, at which rate the authorities will come down hard on him because as we all know "violence never solves anything."

    6) The authorities will earnestly pat themselves on the back as guardians of civilization for having stopped a victim from exercising force in self-defense.

    7) Guy lashes out with disproportionate force because pent up frustration made his temper 5x more explosive it would have been if causality had been allowed to run its course between the attackers and the victim.

    8) The authorities will claim it couldn't have been stopped.

    Violence solves things splendidly with bullies. In the early 1960s, victims of bullying were allowed to beat the shit out of the bully, and the authorities didn't even think about taking up for the bully unless it was so extreme as to be a violent crime.

    You want less violent shootings? Let teenage boys shoot guns (real guns), play video games and beat the shit out of each other when one attacks the other. When violence usually brings more violence back on the perpetrator, people usually are less inclined to use violence. Violent people who are quick to use force are not wired like normal people, and the best way to restrain them is to create a culture that will respond to them violently when they act out.

    1. Re:The pussification of the West by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Jesus, right on the mark.

      It was an observation from many of my buds and I in high school that the system was set up completely to defend bullies. Go tell on them? The incompetent, stupid school administration, whom probably feel a type of kindred with the bullies, do absolutely NOTHING and the second the inexperienced nerd fights back (not knowing the proper ways to get around the system) is the one whom gets in trouble.

      My school had a 3-hits-in-the-head rule before you could strike back. I was hit in front of teachers, all sorts of things, they never did jack squat.

    2. Re:The pussification of the West by Aranykai · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I was shoved to the ground one time in front of teaching staff by an upperclassmen whom I had somehow offended. They told me to "buck up". Two days later he attempted it again and I laid a closed fist square on his jaw. It ended there, guess it surprised him that I stood up, but I was immediately hauled to the principal. Guess who got suspended.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    3. Re:The pussification of the West by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well most mass shooting are done by sociopaths. Now we could argue what the term 'sociopath' actually means but I think we would agree it at least means the person has an abnormal psychology.

      You want less violent shootings? Let teenage boys shoot guns (real guns), play video games and beat the shit out of each other when one attacks the other.

      We already have this, it's called gangs. And no it doesn't reduce violent shootings.

    4. Re:The pussification of the West by SBFCOblivion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. You stand up for yourself and somehow you're the bad guy. It even extends to parents, man. The whole "don't stoop to their level" crap.

      My wife and I have a son who is one and a half years old and we've already discussed and agreed upon situations like this. When our kid is old enough to understand we're going to reassure him that if he's ever picked on and defends himself we'll defend him all the way. If we get called in to the school because of an 'incident' and it turns out he was only defending himself I don't think the school administration will be too happy when we 100% condone what our kid did.

      I realize this may cause problems with him being in that school, but that's something we'll deal with if/when the time comes. I refuse to preach bullshit to my kid about 'stooping to their level'.

      I was a complete pussy when I was a kid and got picked on a lot and never once tried standing up for myself. I'm going to constantly ensure my kid that he'll receive no objection from me.

    5. Re:The pussification of the West by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Which brings up my idea.

      Dueling arenas.

      Not to the death, like during colonial times. But you go in, you fight each other in a 'safe' environment where no one's going to have access to a knife or their 'crew'

      You sign paperwork saying that you will not sue, you will not hit them when they're down, you will not intentionally try to damage their reproductive capabilities, etc. You strap on some boxing gloves and take your shoes and shirt off, and you fight. You beat on each other until someone gives up, taps out, or the two of you reach an understand. The paperwork ALSO says that honor is at stake. Meaning that if you lose the fight and spit in your opponent's face, your friends, family, and everyone within earshot has a right to look down upon you. If you take your beating like a good sport, then you've lost honorably.

      This all sounds retarded and backwards, but I think that violence under some situations can lead to problems being solved.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    6. Re:The pussification of the West by anonymousmeatbag · · Score: 0

      Bullies get training while they are young. When they grow up they get the job adequate to their training. That is the essence of the system.

    7. Re:The pussification of the West by pcgabe · · Score: 1

      because as we all know "violence never solves anything."

      Drew: Violence never solved anything? World War I, World War II, "Star Wars," every Super Bowl...Who says violence never solved anything?

      --
      Don't put advice in your sig.
    8. Re:The pussification of the West by ChienAndalu · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this:

      Dizzy: My mother always told me that violence doesn't solve anything.
      Jean Rasczak: Really? I wonder what the city founders of Hiroshima would have to say about that.
      [to Carmen]
      Jean Rasczak: You.
      Carmen: They wouldn't say anything. Hiroshima was destroyed.
      Jean Rasczak: Correct. Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst.

      To gp: Yes.

    9. Re:The pussification of the West by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's how it usually goes down with these situations, aside from the case where the person isn't a sociopath:

      1) Guy gets marginalized and picked on.

      2) School knows about it and does nothing.

      3) Guy gets subjected to violence.

      4) The authorities do nothing despite the basic fact that we know from common sense and scientific observation that eventually an organism will lash out in self-defense if not protected.

      5) Guy may defend himself, at which rate the authorities will come down hard on him because as we all know "violence never solves anything."

      6) The authorities will earnestly pat themselves on the back as guardians of civilization for having stopped a victim from exercising force in self-defense.

      7) Guy lashes out with disproportionate force because pent up frustration made his temper 5x more explosive it would have been if causality had been allowed to run its course between the attackers and the victim.

      8) The authorities will claim it couldn't have been stopped.

      Violence solves things splendidly with bullies. In the early 1960s, victims of bullying were allowed to beat the shit out of the bully, and the authorities didn't even think about taking up for the bully unless it was so extreme as to be a violent crime.

      You want less violent shootings? Let teenage boys shoot guns (real guns), play video games and beat the shit out of each other when one attacks the other. When violence usually brings more violence back on the perpetrator, people usually are less inclined to use violence. Violent people who are quick to use force are not wired like normal people, and the best way to restrain them is to create a culture that will respond to them violently when they act out.

      could not have said it better myself.

    10. Re:The pussification of the West by atamido · · Score: 1

      Two men enter, one man leave. Where is Tina Turner when you need her?

    11. Re:The pussification of the West by pgn674 · · Score: 1

      When I was way young, up to third grade, I was bullied some. I think my parents and the school worked together some to try and reduce it.

      There's one thing my parents told me and I took to heart: I should not start a fight, but if a fight is ever started against me and I can't walk away or feel the need to fight it out, I should not hesitate to use violent force. But, they said, I should only use just enough force to defend myself and incapacitate the other person, stopping any violence coming towards me.

    12. Re:The pussification of the West by JSlope · · Score: 1

      And what you'll do if your kid will be the guilty one?

      --
      ResoMail - the alternative secure e-mail system
    13. Re:The pussification of the West by SBFCOblivion · · Score: 1

      Ha, if my kid ends up being the bully he'll get a royal beat down. I'll have no tolerance for it as I know first hand what being on the receiving end of it is like.

    14. Re:The pussification of the West by JSlope · · Score: 1

      And how will you know the real truth?

      --
      ResoMail - the alternative secure e-mail system
  28. Violence is Gub'mnt property by noshellswill · · Score: 0

    How German. Citizens can't move a muscle till Abwehr agents point. But, then oh my the Panzer divisions start rolling. Let's hear-it for Gub'mnt violence as well-ordered as a BMW 5-speed. 1-2-3 Seig-Heil mon Komrades.

  29. Hey Germans World War II Guilt is over. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    World War II was a bad thing. We all make mistakes. The people that made them are dead. You don't have to be pussies for the rest of your national life just because your ancestors went overboard.

    Probably in another 10 years, everyone from the WWII generation will be completely dead, and then from there you can hire some PR guys to turn around that whole swastika problem around for you...

    But, in the meantime, at some point, you just have to say, "Hey, everyone, look, we know that it was wrong to for us to start World War II, but you do have to admit that when we declared war on
    -everybody-, it was pretty bad ass. The Fuhrer was pretty psycho but the one ball that he had left must have been pretty big to do that."

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Hey Germans World War II Guilt is over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > completely dead

      Yeah, all those half-dead people are a serious issue. I mean you can never know before if it will be their brain or their heart that is dead today, and tomorrow it migh even be their lungs!

    2. Re:Hey Germans World War II Guilt is over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nahh... I think he was referring to the Necromongers, myself...

      They're really obnoxious, you know...

  30. Politics by Anenome · · Score: 1

    On the one hand I understand this, it's the nature of the political beast: politicians need to be perceived as trying to do something about problems. They need to do this or risk not being re-elected, and they need to do it better than the other guy. This creates a one-up-manship which becomes ridiculous in time. This is ridiculous. Just like banning violent games was ridiculous. Germany, you are become a laughing stock for this and similar.

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
  31. Well shucks... by feepness · · Score: 1

    We'll have to go paintballing before shooting then.

  32. How did that work out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Germany: Great Idea, control the population by restricting personal freedom. How did that work out for you in the past?

  33. Hunting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not taking a position here, but if they really believed in the psychological effects of this, shouldn't sport hunting be banned as well? It's not shooting at other people, but it certainly trivializes firearm usage, and actually consists of killing a living being.

    1. Re:Hunting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, is sport hunting even remotely legal _anywhere_ in Germany? I sure don't think so. Also I don't think it would be fun, because I know for sure that if you only hurt some animal you _absolutely_ have to find and kill it properly or you're in serious trouble. And if it takes you the whole day and night. Real issue for the hunters who are supposed to keep the number of deer and boar in check.

  34. Quoth Hitler: by adavies42 · · Score: 1

    This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation is free of paintball guns! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

    yes, i know the "original" is fake too, but i couldn't resist.

    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
  35. Back to basics by Rungi · · Score: 1

    Who's the leading manufacturer of BB Guns in Germany? Looks like I"ll be investing...

  36. Legislative Proof... by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 1

    ..that they have been shooting the wrong people.

  37. Okay.. by missileman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just don't mention the war...

  38. What is next? Video games? Movies? Music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just the same approach for problems with have no clue how to solve. The rationale of this is just plain silly. 1) 'paintball trivializes violence and risks lowering the threshold for committing violent acts.'. Well, what is next, ban video games? They go in the same line with shooting people. 2) Is not easier to ban the real problem, GUNS?! No, no, no, no, the real problem is the human being itself. Nothing we can do about it.

  39. You can pry my paintball gun... by jpkotta · · Score: 1

    ... from my welted, paint-covered hands!

  40. Reminds me of something Herman Goering said once by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  41. When paintball guns are banned, by hamburgler007 · · Score: 1

    Only the criminals will have paintball guns.

  42. tadhg108 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Germans are fucking nuts. Banning paintball? Oh yeah, that will really change a violent society. Ever hear of the ancient Greek term "catharsis"? WE NEED MORE PAINTBALL NUMB-NUTS!

  43. Problem still exists by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Violent movies are just as dangerous. Anything that glorifies violence as a way to resolve problems or seek justice will give ideas to someone who is mentally ill or psychologically unstable. To solve this issue you'll have to violate citizen's civil liberties related to free speech, privacy and physical freedom. Once you maintain an iron grip on the freedom of expression and the ability of people to move around in the community these problems with random acts of violence should be significantly reduced. As for a skyrocketing suicide problem that would result in these changes, I don't have a way to solve that.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Problem still exists by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Violent movies are just as dangerous.

      Actually, movies are probably worse. They teach that the main character can kill dozens without getting a scratch. Airsoft and paintball teaches you that you suck with a gun. Which is more glamorous in the eyes of a downtrodden teen?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Problem still exists by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well politicians live in a fantasy world and don't acknolwedge that the realistic nature of paintball forces you to realize that if you were using a real gun that your life would be very short.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Problem still exists by Alarindris · · Score: 1

      Well put. The first time a shot a pistol (grew up with shotguns and rifles for hunting), I couldn't hit a 1' x 1' target 20 ft away. Movies and TV are complete BS.

  44. You know who else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... banned guns in Germany?

  45. Urban Terror by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

    I host the server in Munich. AM I NEXT?!! I guess I won't say anything this time.

  46. Games with Pellets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    German Laser Tag.

  47. he committed suicide by noric · · Score: 1
    'A 17-year-old shot dead 15 people in the southwestern town of Winnenden, before killing himself in March,'

    'paintball trivializes violence and risks lowering the threshold for committing violent acts.'

    Does paintball also trivialize suicide? If he woke up, went out, shot 15 people, and came home for lunch, then these corrupt politicians might have a case.

  48. We should probably ban some other things by McBeer · · Score: 1

    Based on last years death rates in the US
    Heart disease: 652,091
    Cancer: 559,312
    Traffic accident: 41,059
    Murder(including non-firearm related): 16,692


    We clearly need to ban cheeseburgers, cigarettes, and cars as well.

    --
    Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
    1. Re:We should probably ban some other things by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Sadly, various levels of government are banning transfats, and here in WA there are few places left where smoking is legal.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:We should probably ban some other things by maxume · · Score: 1

      About the only thing going for transfats is that they have long shelf life; you can still fry your eggs in bacon fat if you feel like you need some cholesterol (of course, no one will forget to eat the bacon).

      Many companies have worked around the current surge in public distaste for transfats by switching to fats with shorter shelf life and enhancing their packaging to be more airtight. The costs of doing this are minuscule when compared to the wholesale and retail markups, so prices didn't really go up.

      If you are railing against government action, you can take solace in the fact that banning trans fats results in a net benefit for the consumer, with essentially no costs.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  49. hmmm by XeroSine · · Score: 0

    crazy lawmakers taking away my fake killing games....I guess NOW we have to resort to using actual guns for our fun. But in all seriousness, This is about as dumb as those ads they played in the UK, you know the ones with the little kids playing air soft and one of them has a real gun....those stupid ads. I'm an avid air softer(used to play paintball....but then i saw the light) and a weep for my German brethren. Hang in there, and hope your gov't figures out its actually fun to play paintball and air soft.

  50. In related news... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    paintball: Fines could be up to 5,000 euros.

    • Water pistols: 2000 euros
    • Running with scissors: 1000 euros
    • Playing Battleship: 500 euros
    • Playing Battleship (naming your "Bismark"): 10000 euros
    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:In related news... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      How much for a "MacGyver" knife?

      Poor MacGyver, on his next mission in Germany, he will have to construct a Swiss Army knife, out of chewing gum foil, paper clip, a bra, etc. . .

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:In related news... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Funny
      • Inventing the blitzkrieg and overrunning Poland: Pricless

      For this and all your other war chest needs, bank in Switzerland. Holder of Jewish gold and art to this very day.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  51. When paintball guns are outlawed, by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

    only outlaws will have unstained clothes.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  52. As a German... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a German, I'd like to apologise for the continuing idiocy of my country. Granted, in this case, it doesn't actually affect anyone except for us, but still.

  53. URGENT petition required: Let's ban paint too! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Let's ban it all at once, including paint too!

    So we can have all white walls, which will be a lot better for our children ...

    Too much colors can never be good! Bring Hercules & CGI back ! Start the petitions!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  54. While they are at it... by mortalmatt · · Score: 1

    While they are engaging in all this moral spelunking why do the Germans not just go ahead and ban karting which 'trivializes' the dangers of driving. Or ban parachuting which 'trivializes' the dangers of gravity. Or while they are at it, they could ban fun which 'trivializes' life in Germany these days which the government wants to make as dull as possible until you are shot to death by a psychotic teenager.

  55. I have a better idea by jipn4 · · Score: 1

    Instead of all these ridiculous restrictions and rules, I have a better idea.

    (1) Convict parents for the crimes committed by their underage children; parents are the legal guardians and should be fully responsible for what their children do. (Likewise, if their underage children are crime victims, convict the parents as well, since they obviously didn't supervise them carefully enough.)

    (2) If someone commits a crime with your gun, you should be an accessory to the crime. It doesn't matter whether you stored it "properly"--if it got used in a crime, it probably wasn't stored well enough.

  56. Fake hysteria by Msdose · · Score: 1

    The mayor of Toronto banned airgun target ranges as a way to stop the barrage of drug gang killings. He realizes that his paycheck would bounce if the drug gangs that bring billions into his city were destroyed, so he supports any knee-jerk response that wastes the resources that would actually solve the problem. It's the only way communists know how to keep an economy running.

    1. Re:Fake hysteria by maxume · · Score: 1

      Are there really billions of dollars of marijuana grown in Toronto?

      If that isn't the case, the drug gangs are siphoning money off of productive activity that does go on in the city, not bringing money into the city. I'm not trying to argue that drugs are bad, mmmkay, I'm pointing out that they resemble an importer/exporter a lot more than they resemble a factory.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  57. good news in germany by pfanne · · Score: 1

    slashdot could at some point bring a good news for the german people ;) we have an online petition against internet censorship going that gathered 60.000 people to sign in like 4 days ;) so not all german people are willing government idiots... mostly the people dont know better... they've been told so much shit by the media in the last months they actually believe that stuff like first person shooters or paintball or whatever are responsible. and then there are a lot people who simply dont care, because neither videogames nor paintball effect them.

  58. SAme as computer game in the US by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Remember where "the" (now disbarred) jack thompson and other idiot tried to ban game after columbine or other shooting ? Same reaction ehre. Plus *SOME* politics *NNED* to show they are doing soemthing to their voters. The combo of the two push them to ban something which is more akin to a game of coyboy-and-indian or theif-and-policemen between grown up boys. Some of us beside rolling their eye in their orbit, ask if the fine will also apply to YOUNG BOY/GIRL playing the two aforementionned game with their finger mimicing a gun and yelling "paw paw paw" to imit gun shoots.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  59. I am anti hand guns by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    I am anti hand guns because there is enough evidence connecting hand gun ownership to deaths by it. (Will NOT provide references.) The more hand guns owned in a society, the more casualties. The US as the predominant example have developed into a society where raising your voice is considered more threatening and rude than bearing fire arms. (However I am fascinated by the technology used in fire arms.)

    I also have never engaged in paint balling. I probably never will.

    But, I see absolutely NO connection between playing paint ball and the killing of people with fire arms. I take Mrs. Merkel wants to make a political gesture in showing she actually cares about the killings and that she is taking the matter seriously. If at voting sensibility is completely absent, the Germans are screwed. I wonder whether a ban of such a social activity does not violate other, more important laws.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:I am anti hand guns by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I like how you're so dead-set on not backing up your claims of 'evidence'. You'll of course ignore that statistics from surveys done in 1998 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms show that 90% of violent crime in the US involve no firearms of any type, further the National Crime Victimization Survey done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1994 showed that in crimes where the offender possessed a gun 83% of the time they neither used nor explicitly threatened to use it. The Uniform Crime Statistics of the FBI from 1994 have indicated that less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime, and also that fully two-thirds of those that die from gunshot wounds are convicted criminals who have been shot by other convicted criminals. Don't let any of these fact get in the way of how you 'feel' about the issue, you might actually have to think instead of grabbing an opinion out of the air.

      Raising your voice is more threatening and rude than simply possessing a firearm. I carry an H&K USP .45 fullsize Var. C almost every day, and have done so since I was 21. And unless I talk about it, which is rare, nobody knows I have it. How can something that is invisible be threatening or rude? Far from threatening, I end up being a free bodyguard for everybody within reasonable distance. In all the years I've carried, I've never once had to draw on anybody, but if something were to happen nearby that appeared to be a threat of imminent or act of excessive violence, I would intervene. Maybe that's why Florida's homicide rate fell 40% after concealed carry was legalized. In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after passage, 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1995-2001) But feel free to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the facts from objective sources. Keep believing and pushing the lies. Never mind that states that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than the national average. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 2004) As far as I'm concerned, that increased bloodshed is on the hands of people like you who won't recognize that people who can defend themselves are safer.

      Finally, since you singled out handguns and were so quick to declare that you wouldn't back up your opinions (no doubt because if they have any source at all, it will be the discredited, wholly political, unethical things put out by interest groups like the Violence Policy Center that routinely defines 'children' as '23-year-old career felon gang members' just so they can make the number of 'children' killed by gunshots as high as possible), if you take statistics once more from the FBI Uniform Crime, CDC WISQARS, and the BATFE Firearms Commerce Report, you will find that while the number of privately owned handguns has more than doubled since 1970, the handgun homicide rate has fallen 25% since the same year. Quite simply there is no correlation, at all, whatsoever, between handgun ownership and the handgun homicide rate.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:I am anti hand guns by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I am anti hand guns because there is enough evidence connecting hand gun ownership to deaths by it. (Will NOT provide references.) The more hand guns owned in a society, the more casualties. The US as the predominant example have developed into a society where raising your voice is considered more threatening and rude than bearing fire arms. (However I am fascinated by the technology used in fire arms.)

      Do you always talk shit or just when it comes to hand guns?

  60. Tag of scapegoat by owlstead · · Score: 1

    I've tagged this scapegoat. But I wonder if it is correct, since a scapegoat is normally a person or at least a group of persons. "lightningrod" any better?

  61. Paintball is a distraction from Pharma Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim Kretschmer had been treated for depression. I cannot confirm if he was given the usual drugs but that seems highly likely.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5898272.ece

    This Times article makes it sound like it was his fault that he shot people because he "broke off the treatment". In fact it could be the huge rebound effects that there are from stopping Pharma drug usage. See http://drugawareness.org

    This is huge Pharma corruption also involving the German government where these shootings are covered up so Pharma drug sales are not effected. See http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/

  62. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    You don't even need that. In fact, such jingoistic propaganda is unlikely to work in most modern democracies, absent real attacks such as 9/11 (and even then, the effect seems quite limited). Our people have lived without external threats for so long that they tend to be more paranoid about their own government and fellow citizens than they are about other nations. No - if you really want to bring the people to the bidding of their leaders, just tell them you'll keep them safe from misfortune and failure. Turn the government into their surrogate mother and you'll turn them into children - unable to even contemplate resisting your control.

  63. Up next, boxing, fencing, martial arts . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    Boxing? Teaching folks how to beat each other senseless with their hands. Fencing? Teaching folks how to make human shish kabob. Martial arts? Teaching humans how to imitate how animals kill ("Hah! Tiger style!").

    How come Kung Fu doesn't have a "human style?" The closest I've seen would be "Drunken boxer style" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunken_boxing. And that should be called "Saturday night in a pub in Ireland style."

    Actually, this proposed law is all just election posturing for elections in Germany this year.

    Great way to make friends with the younger voters: Take away their weekend hobby.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  64. There are other lessons too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world has learned what an armed populace ignoring it's government outright evilness could do to other countries. (Have you too thought about Iraq now?)
    Germans are afraid of being evil. And to the outside world especially, as the world has taught them a lesson recently.

  65. Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When things are illegal, people who deal in them will use illegal means of dispute resolution, in part because those are the only ones available. If you and I have a business dispute over legal business and we just can't resolve it, well then one of us can take the other to court, and resolve it there. However if we are dealing in illegal business, we really can't be doing that since, well, we'd get arrested and all that. Thus violence is a more common means of resolution. Now when you have a large, and well funded empire going on, then the violence level increases that much more. You have the means to get lots of weapons, and the reason to use them.

    Well legalization really does take that all away. The reason is that you just can't compete effectively with the legal businesses, unless you set up your own. If you try to run a business designed around the way you did it when things were illegal, you'll go broke.

    I mean take alcohol as a good example. There is no widespread distribution of moonshine. That isn't to say there aren't people who don't occasionally make alcohol illegally (it is controlled and you have to pay taxes on it and such) but it is rare, and localized. There's no way to make any real money. After all customers won't come seeking you, since you aren't offering a unique product, you are offering something they can get at any Safeway. You can't distribute your product at retail centers, so no widespread sales. You can't charge a lot since the only thing you can offer is a lower price. Thus there's all of no money to be made on it illegally. You either go legit or you go out of business.

    Now I'm not saying legalization doesn't have downsides, no action is without cost, but to argue that legalizing wouldn't reduce violence is stupid, and shows a massive ignorance of the prohibition in the US and basic economic realities. You get Philip Morris and the like in on selling drugs and you'll see the cartels dropping like flies.

    1. Re:Yep by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Beautiful argument. Mod parent up.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  66. The gov doesn't want to do anything by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    First, we have elections in Europe and in Germany this year. Second, Germany is governed by a coalition of the two bigger parties (it is called great coalition, however the meaning is more like big coalition). So if any of those politicians who are part of this big coalition says something it is related to the government. However, this does not mean that hey have a consensus on that issue. And before they do not have a consens on the subject nothing will happen.

    Some of this coalition want to ban guns in households, other want to have better locks at the doors for weapon lockers. Others want these guns only available at shooting clubs and their firing range. And others want to prohibit paintball.

    An official of the German police said that this is ridiculous and that they would never be able to enforce it, because you would have to control every forrest and those playing cops and robbers with toy guns can go free, but the paintballs have to be confiscated.

    What the politicians really try to do with this bullshit is, to make sure nobody asks why these school shooters pull the trigger.
       

  67. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by spanky+the+monk · · Score: 1

    No - if you really want to bring the people to the bidding of their leaders, just tell them you'll keep them safe from misfortune and failure. Turn the government into their surrogate mother and you'll turn them into children - unable to even contemplate resisting your control.

    ...such an eloquent description of the Nanny State. People cry to the their government, "protect me, mommy. Make the boogie men go away".

  68. PAWAM by Bloater · · Score: 1

    In these dangerous times when our children are receiving blunt traumas from even their classmates in ever increasing numbers due to violent games that desensitise our children to violence, especially video games that are so easily and cheaply available to even the youngest of children, I urge you all to join PAWAM.

    Parents Against Whack-A-Mole is a non-profit organisation dedicate to protecting our children from the modern depravity and cruelty that is now pandemic in today's society. Membership is free, but, even if you don't wish to join, please make a donation today so that we can continue to help those suffering the effects of violent desensitisation.

    Yours Faithfully
    Tristan Wibberley (General Secretary - PAWAM)

  69. Mod this guy informative . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . especially the bit about the police, which I just read here: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,623530,00.html

    I think that this law would get, excuse me, "shot down" at the German Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof).

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  70. Antidepressants by spanky+the+monk · · Score: 1

    Antidepressants cause school shootings. The media will never tell you that though. There's lots of money in antidepressants.

  71. Forget about that by meist3r · · Score: 1

    The last time they tried that it was 2003 after another shooting spree. Our supreme court held up the constitution and said "Fuck you". This barking for a ban of paintball comes in line with a "ban for firearms", "ban for violent video games", "ban for underage drinking", "ban on drugs" and guess what time it is? Right! It's election time. Some CDU douche even said that violent video games equal drugs and child pornography in their "bad effects on society". Now there is some grand illusion for you. In fall there will be several big elections and all these reactionary bullshitters are piling up hills from which to shout their election programs from.

    Who cares, I at least don't. I know our politicians are completely full of shit and can't be trusted. The only thing left to do is vote Pirate Party. More and more people are starting to wake up.

  72. Oh, for f*#k sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may as well also ban all war games, all war films. Get rid of toy guns and toy soldiers. Stop recruitment to the army, air force and navy. Take those guns away from the police. While we're at it we might get rid of books which refer to war, guns, violence or anything else which might put the idea into the head of someone reading/watching it. Knives should be included too. Get them out of the kitchen. Knitting needles can be used in place of knives. Garden forks, metal bars, loose rocks and stones. We should get rid of saws, axes, hammers, drills. Cars are an obvious aid to violence - witness what happened in Holland recently when a car was driven into the crowd waiting to see the Dutch Royal Family. Needless to say, children will no longer be able to play cowboys and Indians (or whatever other violent games they might play).

    But that doesn't go anywhere near far enough. All violent thoughts and utterances should be banned. You will no longer be allowed to hate or dislike anybody or anything because of where that might lead. And since liking something implies a degree of dislike of that which is not encompassed by the liked thing, we must ban liking things too. No preference for anything should be shown by anyone.

    Pretty soon the only citizens who will be acceptable will bear a striking resemblance to a lump of lard. No expression of feeling, no outward emotion, no desire, no passion. You Linux nutters will be gone forever as will the Windows Zealots. No more hype of anything, advertisements banned lest it whip up a frenzy of support for this or that.

    Really, we're all going to die. There is no way out, and these governments are trying to make what little time the majority of us have on this planet a misery for the sake of postponing the death of some vanishingly small minority of victims.

    I never thought this would sound radical, but I say, keep the paint ball! I don't even play the game and don't want to, but if there is one thing which makes me feel violent, it is the excessive zeal with which our politicians seek to kerb our happiness and remove what little choice we still have left.

  73. Sounds like something Hitler would do by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    By banning blood in video games, paint balling, etc they're taking the fun out of Germany and turning it into Nazi Germany without using an army.

    1. Re:Sounds like something Hitler would do by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      No it doesn't sound like something Hitler would do. Combat training was required for children - you must have heard about the Hitler Youth?

      Yeah, sure: Hitler wanted the Germans to be peaceful, non-violent people. That makes so much sense.

  74. Cal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, someone has a BRILLIANT idea to ban paintballing and such sports...because that's going to solve the problem, right?

    It seems we have idiots making these laws, who don't really seem to be in touch with reality.
    They can ban whatever they like, psycho's will still exist and find a way to kill, if they're dead set on it.

    You're not allowed to own guns in the UK, same goes for Germany i'm assuming. We still have people getting shot (low as the number may be, definately lower than America) and increasingly we see people stabbed to death. So what now? Let's ban knives!

    I honestly wouldn't be surprised.

  75. This backfired big time allready by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is in the news here since two days ago and basically backfired big time allready, with even the police union turning to the CDU and saying 'totally hairbrained stupid idea'. Particularly hilarious is the reaction of one of those supporting the programm in an spiegel-online interview from yesterday (it's in the last fourth of the video - in German though - but you can catch the tone nonetheless). The guy loses his cool the instant he is asked about it, having been bugged the entire day about it. Very funny indeed and the comentary of the video doesn't stint on snide and whitty remarks on this political botch either.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  76. why ban Paintballing by rs232 · · Score: 1

    Why ban paintballing, when the solution is to ban civilians from possessing arms. Oh wait, that would mean less profits for the arms industry ...

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
    1. Re:why ban Paintballing by wpiman · · Score: 1

      That would create more defenseless victims. 10 out of 10 criminals prefer a victim without a gun. You think murders/rapists/home invaders care about gun laws?

  77. Good move. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Might as well just start rounding them up now. Making paintball and airsoft (Or SoftAir as they call it for reasons beyond understanding) illegal only serves to criminalize players. Because we all know, making something illegal for no good reason will not deter people in the least. (Look at marijuana.)

    General rule of thumb: If no one in their right mind can think of a reason it should be illegal, your law is STUPID.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Good move. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

      Wait wait wait, I just had a thought. Doesn't this technically outlaw the use of NERF WEAPONS as well? What the FUCK Germany??

      --

      Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  78. My post was clearly a joke by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    I know that Germany isn't actually going to go on a world conquest kick again any time soon, I know that the French military would be able to handle an unarmed opponent, and I thought that insinuating otherwise would be enough to make it clear that I was kidding.

    And although I haven't explicitly read that the German army still has guns, I would never have guessed otherwise. Do gun bans ever actually ban guns? Gun control is generally for the hoi polloi, not for men who take the leaders' orders.

  79. Election time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, elections coming up again?
    This, like the computer games bashing, is just a political thing. They want the voters to see that they do something about it. Germany has lots of old people and those are the people that are often politically engaged, uninformed and very conservative - and they totally buy this crap.
    "Violent computer games? Toy guns? The internet? Ban all that new stuff. We don't need it and it only causes harm. Increase of old-age pension? Hell yea!"

    They recently built up internet censorship to increase their votes and now this. Don't politicians have anything important to do? They used to say stupid things to get votes, but now they actually go a step further and pass stupid laws to get more votes.

    I wonder how they didn't ban martial arts yet. Probably keeping something for the next elections.

  80. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to add it'll help get rid of the kiddy fiddling perverts and "think of the children". Don't know if the trick works in the EU, but it works great in the USA. They just trot Nancy Grace and a bunch of other talking heads to show the pic of some dead kid and say things like "If the police would have only been able to go after this scum, instead of having their hands tied by LIBERALS, this little kid would be alive! What is wrong with you, are you FOR kiddy fiddling perverts?" and the next day the congress critters can sit back and smile as the little old ladies call in their support for the next "anti pervert trust your government not to abuse you" law.

    Don't really see it changing short of revolution though. Folks have gotten just too easy to manipulate with the combination of lousy public education and all their "information" being fed to them through the boob tube. Get the right talking heads to blather on in support of whatever draconian law you want and it is a slam dunk.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  81. 2009 = Important election year in Germany by bo2000 · · Score: 1

    All these strange demands (banning paintball, DNS-blocking of chilpornography, ...) by our politicians recently only have one reason: 2009 is an important election year in Germany ("Superwahljahr"). Even the police union is against such a law because it's BS.

  82. A favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    German guy here.

    I don't really want to contribute anything to this whole censorship-discussion, as I've really grown tired of it. After all, this kind of lunatic, random censorship is nothing special around here; just check out www.schnittberichte.com, a page listing all the cuts that had to be made to movies, games and even TV-Series to allow them to be released here. (It's a german page though).

    What I really want to do is ask every American here to do me a favor. If we finally arrive at 1984, would you please bomb us? It would be much appreciated. I really don't want to live in the 4th Reich, where cars (drunks could drive them), videogames (they make you want to kill), paintball (just a combat simulation, really), pencils (makes kids want to stab people), penises (you rape women with it), farting (destroys the ozone layer) and everything else somehow related to "free will" (is that how it's called? I almost forgot) is illegal.

    Thank you kindly in advance.

  83. insanity rules by Tom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, another fine product of the current german government. And yes, I am german, so I'm allowed to whine (and yes, I'm trying to change things).

    The problem is that the current government in Germany is made up of people who are either incompetent or insane, and sometimes both. And when I say "insane", I actually do mean that in a clinical psychological sense. Our minister of the interior, who is pushing law after law which are almost all later found to be unconstitutional, is suffering from PTSD. His medical records are kept a secret. This is the same guy who says that if you've got nothing to hide, you couldn't possibly be opposed to all the new surveilance measures. Go figure.

    Our (female) minister for family, education, etc. is the bitch behind the "STOP" sign and DNS redirection to fight child porn. You know, the thing that does absolutely nothhing against actual child abuse, but only tries very weakly to stop the display of pictures of same (i.e. at least two layers of abstraction away from the actual event). If you've followed her story even a little, you also have to doubt whether she's perfectly sane or not.

    The list goes on with ministers of finance who were personally involved with some banks that crashed and likely prevented investigations until liabilities for the former owners (their friends) had expired, a minister of transportation who's trying to sell the state train system, at about 10% of its estimated worth, and a prime minister who very strongly stands for ... nothing. I don't think anyone on the streets of Germany could tell you what she stands for, what her policies are, or what the heck she's doing at all.

    So that's Germany in 2009. Not so much different from the US in 2008, even to the point that it is election year. Except that we don't have an Obama to promise change. So elections will be very interesting.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  84. Better solution by chckn.grg · · Score: 1

    Most weapons require an opposable thumb. Perhaps we should just have those removed at birth.

  85. Video games? Trading cards battles? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    And what about these other "trivialized violence" examples?

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
  86. This will do nothing good. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    It's like banning violent videogames. It'll never work for two reasons:

    1. The people who 'easily transition' from something like Paintball to actual violence would just as easily transition from EATING PANCAKES to violence. It's because they're CRAZY.
    2. There are lots of people who play Paintball and stuff to work off violent, base, tail-brain, impulses so they DON'T end up throttling nth stupid person they have to deal with today.

    People are still going to do it, and it's going to get to the point where they have to start locking up multiple offenders. So, geniuses, what does it mean when you start locking up dozens of otherwise normal and upstanding citizens and there's STILL SHOOTINGS?

    If you want to ban a sport that's responsible for violent behavior, ban RUGBY.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  87. I don't see a connection... by indre1 · · Score: 1

    I've played airsoft for years and I believe there aren't many direct connections between airsoft or paintball and real shooting. Instead of killing someone, the person simply sits down or walks away after being shot. Also, if you'd talk to someone that has been in the army and played airsoft, they'd say it's not comparable to even real combat imitation, everyone walks around 100m away from enemy, with no fear or being shot. IT'S A GAME.

    On the other hand, in computer games you do "kill" someone, there's blood etc... Why not ban them?
    They always have to go for the good stuff first, don't they?

  88. Other activities to ban - add to the list by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    Fencing - could lead to school slayings
    Martial Arts - you never know when someone could go lethal weapon on you
    Archery - snipers don't have to use guns

    Add to the list if you've got one

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:Other activities to ban - add to the list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wiping your ass - never know when you're going to rupture a hemorrhoid and die from infection.

  89. Paintball trivialized violence. . . by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1
    TFA says:

    The governing parties say paintball trivialises violence and risks lowering the threshold for committing violent acts.

    Obviously Germans would be committing fewer violent acts if they didn't have paintball. I mean, just look at the first half of the twentieth century. Paintball was more popular than air when the Germans tried to take over the continent (twice!) and wiped out six million people. Now that paintball is waning in popularity, and played by maybe 1% of the population, the country has maybe 200 murders per year. It's good to see that the German government is familiar with history and is willing to be proactive about the salient issues.

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  90. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by Skillet5151 · · Score: 1

    Jingoistic propaganda is unlikely to work in most modern democracies, absent real attacks such as 9/11 (and even then, the effect seems quite limited)

    This may be the first time I've heard the effects of 9/11 and subsequent fearmongering described as "limited." The creation of a new cabinet department, two foreign wars, and a major change in national consciousness qualifies as limited now huh? Have we gotten into Newspeak already?

    No, I am NOT an American

    Evidently not.

  91. banning pistols from bedrooms by eric-x · · Score: 1

    wouldn't it make more sense to ban pistols from bedrooms?

    From the article:
    The teenager shot many of his victims in the head with his father's legally registered pistol. His father, a member of a shooting club, had 15 guns at home â" fourteen were locked in a gun closet as required by law but the pistol was in the bedroom.

    This is just as insane as the dutch ban on magic mushrooms.

  92. Not quite by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Paintball, at least in most of the places I've played, has devolved into an arms race to see who can spray the most paint.

    I entirely understand where you're coming from - emptying hefty loads of paint in the general direction of the enemy team is becoming an increasingly common (and IMO, cheap and annoying) strategy, but that strategy is only good for terrorizing and pinning down opponents. Accuracy is really what counts - for anyone who's unfamiliar with paintball, most paintball guns like the rentals you'll get will spray balls around so badly that once an opponent gets more than 50-60ft. away, hitting them begins to transition from an act of skill to a stroke of luck...especially outdoors. The most accurate markers will allow you to shoot with decent accuracy at 80-100ft.

    Accuracy AND a high firing rate, on the other hand, will allow you to utterly destroy and dominate any team that isn't similarly equipped. I've played on teams of skilled players with rental equipment against teams with a similar skill level but with fully automatic, highly accurate markers, and they were just toying with us. We were helpless as they systematically pinned us down with a hail of paint, closed in and took us out. One person on our team had military training but was playing paintball for the first time - he was doing a decent job so far but we had to explain to him to throw all the old rules out the window with this team.

    Expose any part of yourself at any distance and you WILL get hit. Don't try to run through their fire at a distance, you WILL get hit. Don't expect them to stop shooting, each one of them is carrying more ammo than our whole team has. Keep moving as much as you can, if you get pinned down you're done for.

    The only thing more depressing than helplessly taking cover while being pinned down with an unrelenting hail of paint is firing at an opponent running brazenly across the field 70ft. or so away and watching the balls fly randomly around them...at times it definitely feels like a spending competition, but those are rare cases and I wouldn't say the "game has devolved" to that level in general.

    Also on the firearms vs. paintball debate, after playing paintball I don't see how anyone could lower themselves exclusively to shooting inanimate objects. Shooting is just one part of paintball.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Not quite by Danse · · Score: 1

      Accuracy AND a high firing rate, on the other hand, will allow you to utterly destroy and dominate any team that isn't similarly equipped.

      This is what I've generally encountered. People toting $400 markers and a backpack full of paint, who play regularly. Unless you've got that kind of firepower on your team too, you will get pinned down and run over.

      The funny thing about playing with military guys that are new to the game is that they tend to just hit the dirt and start crawling around :) Sounds good in a real firefight, but doesn't help much in paintball.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  93. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Herman Goering said this in his interviews for the Nuremberg trials.

  94. Of course! Makes total sense! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Because we all know, that nobody who plays paintball, knows that those pellets are different than bullets. At least in 30 years there will, because education will actively be held so low that there is nobody left to know stuff. It's for the good of us all. Nanny government takes care of it aaall. Just be a nice citizen and go to bed again.

    Of course there will be some outlaws, who then will still play, and maybe this time grab a real gun instead of a paintball gun, at their local illegal gun dealer. You know, It's way cooler. And then someone will shoot someone, out of pure randomness. Which will, again, prove that it was awww-right to ban them in the first place.

    </sarcasm>

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  95. Before you get any ideas by Eviscero · · Score: 1

    I thought he'd want us to remember: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson

    --


    It's not what you know; It's what you can find out.
  96. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    This may be the first time I've heard the effects of 9/11 and subsequent fearmongering described as "limited."

    How else would you describe majority opposition for the Iraq war, something like 50% opposition to the Afghan conflict, constant complaints about wiretapping and "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the lowest approval figures of any president in US history?

    Sure, the 9/11 attacks had a strong impact on the American people. However, the long term effect has been negligible. People are still split on the same old political lines, and continue to quibble about the same old issues - the existence of an external threat seems to be the last thing on most peoples minds. When the biggest argument in your nation regarding the war on terror is whether or not to prosecute CIA agents who engaged in "waterboarding" captured militants, you know that people have pretty much dismissed the threat of terrorism.

  97. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by Azundris · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    That's just the thing, though. Nowadays if German A accuses German B of a lack of patriotism, B will most likely consider A a nazi or a nitwit. It's become pretty much a dirty word.

  98. jeez by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I didn't really mean it. Everyone is so sensitive...

  99. Really? by tb2007 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad they found evidence that directionally relates to this being a problem.

    Paintball is great wayto build team work, end of discussion. Go the a Pro tournament and see for yourself.

    My cousin is a professional paintball player and I don't think he has killed anyone yet......he may have but I don't think so.

  100. Unlike Gun Clubs! by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    In germany we have elections this year. Thats why the politicians need to pretend they were doing something. On the other hand they don't want to piss off the very big Gun Club lobby, so the only thing they can do is bash some scapegoats (like first person shooters and paintball)

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  101. Nothing trivializes violence ... by Nail · · Score: 1

    ... like equating it with paintball.

    --
    ...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
  102. Gross? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    (it is called great coalition, however the meaning is more like big coalition)

    I suspect the German word is "gross", although one of the English meanings may be closer.

    1. Re:Gross? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      You are so right. :-D How could I overlooked that fact? All these anglicism in German today ... it makes understanding politics very difficult.

  103. Absudity by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    I hate how the blame is always concentrated on one topic. If paintball turned people into killers then there would be millions more murders then there currently are. Yes it could be a attributing factor. More likely the kid was from a disfunctional family, had social issues, wasn't able to get the help to make sense of the world he was in and, oh ya most importantly, enjoyed competitive paintball and violent video games.

  104. Krauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know if this were any other country than Germany, I would say that this is ridiculous. But I think it's best to limit the Germans access to activities or material that would incite their natural violent tendencies.

  105. Angela Merkel is a puppet ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever since Angela Merkel's government was elected, time and time again (Â202c, carbon tax, and now this) it has proved to have no interest in satisfying the will of its constituents, but rather to be the leading government in Europe applying pro 1984 Orwellian policies. Who exactly is this government serving ? Certainly not its people.

  106. Oh Noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paintball is illegal now?! Oh well...I guess I'll have to resort to real guns then. At least it's still legal to shoot real guns from the looks of those high school shootings.

  107. on another note by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Funny

    The German Government plans to ban thunderbolts and lightening, the rationale for this is
    that they are "Very very frightening" Fines could be up to 5,000 euros."

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  108. Re:Bad translation by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Diet pills or Diat Pils?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  109. Re:Reminds me of something Herman Goering said onc by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Ummmm, was it something I said?

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.